ce fem ne

"TMY atmosphecic releases fiom the Hanford ste @ B. A. Nasun a 205

Hi . Koco
O21 8 tees
Big. 1. Map of the Hanford Site indicating locations of the T and
B Plants, REDOX, and PUREX, as well as the atmospheric
monitoring station in dowatown Richland, Washington,

Monitored on .a routine basis (e.g. Patterson 1948),
‘Therefore, a modeling approach to reconstruct the re-
leases was necessary. The details of the models that were
developed are provided by Heeb (Heeb 1994; Heeb et al,
1996). In brief, the first problem was to calculate the
amount of '*T that was created in each batch of irradiated
fuel. This required a calculation that took into account
the varying neutron flux throughout the reactor core, the

isotopic cross sections for the unique neutron spectrum

of the Hanford Feactors, and the Jength of the fuel
irradiation period. Once those calculations were in place,
much of the subsequent sovrce-term calculations in-
Volved keeping track of the time and Place that the fue!
was processed. A model of reactor and processing plant
Operations, based on detailed daily records in the period
1944, through 1949, and on Jess detailed monthly records
thereafter, was developed. The other important variable
in the source term derivation was the release factor,
which Heeb (1994) defined as “... the Tatio of the
radionuclide activity released to the radionuclide activity
Processed.” The source term calculation Was a matter of
keeping track of the TM[ that went into a fuel processing
plant and then applying a release’ factor to predict the
amount that was released to the atmosphere. The calcu-
lations were complex, and uncertainties in the various
Portions of the model were propagated using Monte
Carlo analyses, This Modcl, once established, was used
to estimate the releases from the entire Period of Hanford

- Operations from 1944 through 1972, when the last

Processing plant closed, until the mid-1980's,
‘The primary concems raised about the Heeb model
for the atmospheric releases have involved the estimates

several facilities is presented as Fig. 2. The release
fraction in the early years was very high, because there
was little filtration equipment installed on the process
off-gas lines. The dissolving steps were fesponsible for

line, Gases and vapors were also collecied from the rest
of the chemical processing plant, including room air, and
Fouted to the same 60-m stack through which the dis-
solver off-gases were released, According to Heeb’s
assessment, a fraction of about 0.86 (a normal distribu-
tion with a standard deviation of about 0.03) of the iodine
‘Was released to the off-gas line, another 0.075 (a uniform
distribution between 0.05 and 0.10) was released from
the rest of the plant, and about 0.03 condensed and ran
back down the inside of the Stack. Thus, the early release
factor was 0.905.

As time and the wartime urgency passed and as the
Operators became more aware of the magnitude of the py
teleases, processes were modified and filters added to
greatly reduce the releases. In May 1948, water scrubbers
were installed in the T and B Plant off-gas line, which
removed about 75% (between 71 and 79%) of the iodine
from this pathway. Sand filters were installed on the.
ventilation system that haadléd the Off-gases from the

Reencwcricmes —Accéetliotias
‘PURER ty She, luse
_ Tt = >
eon eck, :
ras Stee Add eater
sates mun  plarcacte

dee . oe te
Hig. % Time lise of operations of Hanford's T, B, REDOX, aud

PUREX processing plants, illustrating changes in emission con- -

trols (below the time fines) and significant events (above the time
Hines).

ate manpeeneeeen

+ tam



File
February 10, 1988
Page 6

. Correction factors. {dated 7/50).]. Prior to.1950, little information is

available on correction factors used for scrubber samples.

Some documents mention that the scrubber and filter results agreed well (Paas
and Singlevich 1950a, 1951a, 1951b). Other documents also note that scrubber
and vegetation results agreed well (Paas and Singlevich 1950c; Paas 1952c).

Portable scrubbers were used to track the plume. In one case, several were
installed to specifically monitor the discharge from the December 1949 "green
run" (Paas and Singlevich 1950a)

Conclusions:

The few offsite scrubber locations (from 1945 to 1955) make the usefulness of
scrubber data in assessing iodine doses questionable. However, a comparison
of scrubber and vegetation data may serve a QA function. Also, as mentioned
earlier, correlations of filter and scrubber data may provide some

indications of airborne 131] levels at sights where scrubbers were not found.

Several questions remain on the accuracy of the scrubber data. Questions
(that need answering to -better evaluate scrubber data) and uncertainties are
in the attached appendix. : -

C. Hand Pumps

Hand pumps (with thiosulfate solution) were developed in August 1945 (Healy
1945). The first mention of a hand pump measurement is in the Environs
Report for the second half of September 1946 (Healy and Gamertsfelder 1946).

The hand pumps contai glass absorption columns using sodium thiosulfate
solution (10 cc of a 1% solution) as the absorbing medium. These cotumns
contained glass wool packing to insure close contact between the solution and
air. Air was pulled through the column with a three liter hand pump. The
solution was then evaporated by fastening a capillary directly to the column
and allowing the solution to drop on a1 inch watch glass. The watch glass
was counted by a mica window counter. They estimated that it was possible to
detect 7_x 10(-15) Ci/cc of iodine (Cantril and Healy 1945) with 3 liters of
air, or 7 x 10(-16) Ci/cc with 30 liters of air assuming 100% absorption in
the thiosulfate (Healy 1945).

Apparently, the hand-pump samples were taken to track plume concentrations.
Mention of sample collection is in reference to plume looping. In the last
half of May 1947, warmer weather and more Jooping of stack gases caused a
renewal of the hand pump sample collection {where 15 samples were taken)
(Gamertsfelder 19476).

4014219

[ nc

ce
FODAD

3


File
February 10, 1988
Page 2

Conclusions: .

assess airborne radioiodine levels, because they did not exclusively monitor
jodine, the ground may have been the major source, and the integrons had

Data from the integrons and detachable chambers cannot be reliably used to )
considerable problems.

AIR SAMPLING DEVICES

The air sampling devices consisted of filter units (including standard, dual,
Constant Iodine {CI} Units, and particulate), caustic scrubbers (including
portable ones), little suckers, and hand pumps (Healy 1945, Healy and
Gamertsfelder 1946, Singlevich and Paas 1949, and Paas and Singlevich 1951a).

A. Filter Units
A.1 Standard Filter Units

The first mention of filter units (in the literature reviewed) occurred in a
weekly Environs report for the week ending 2/6/46 (Health Instrument Group
1945). One filter unit was located offsite (in Richland); More filter units
were added with time. In February 1950, 15 filter units were in place, 3 of
which were offsite in Richland, Kennewick and Pasco (Paas and Singlevich
1950c). In December 1951, 20 units were in place, 6 of which were offsite in
North Richland, Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, Benton City and Riverland (Paas
1952a). In December 1955, 18 units were in place, 4 of which were offsite in
the 1100 Area, Pasco, Benton City and Riverland (Andersen and Soldat 1956a).

"Air was filtered through CHS #6 filter paper (1-1/2 inch asbestos disks,

(Healy et al. 1951) at a rate of 2 to 2.5 cfm (Paas 1954a,b). The filters
collected air for periods of 1 day to'l week (Paas and Singlevich 1950c, Paas
1952c) for a total volume approaching 20,000 cubic feet (Paas and Singlevich
1950c). No mention is made of how accurately the cfm (and, thus, volume of
sampled air) was known. The only discussion on air flow is made regarding
particulate filters (in 6/51) which drew from 2 to 10 cfm. The following
Statement was made (Paas and Singlevich 1951b):

“The volume of sampled air was accurately summed by placing running time
meters in series with the motor and using the total operating time along
with the pre-calibrated flow rate."

Whether this was done with the regular air filters is not stated. The
filters were not counted until the radon and thoron daughters had decayed
several days (Paas and Singlevich 1950e). Until 1947, the filters were
apparently counted directly. In 1948, the filters were analyzed for total
beta activity by a nitric acid extraction (Healy 1948b). The filters were
counted by the standard, 1-inch diameter, thin mica window GM detector, which
was in a lead pig (Healy 1947, 1948b; Paas and Singlevich 1951b). The filter

4014215



7 File
February 10, 1988
Page 11

nation Observed in the Air, the h
-Hanford<tnyi Works ‘forthe —~ 7
HW-3-5511, General Electric

Wolf, J. H. 1951. Calculation Constants Used by Regional Survey. HW-22682,

General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

APPENDIX
._ POTENTIAL ERRORS AND UNCERTAINTY IN 1949 - 1950'S
~ MEASUREMENTS OF AIRBORNE IODINE-131 LEVELS VIA CAUSTIC SCRUBBERS

TABLE 1. Potential Measurement Errors

Error Discussion
SCRUBBER OPERATION AIR FLOW:
QB : This would probably cause a bias so that the results
would indicate lower 131] levets. We need to know

how and when air flow was measured; how air flow was
included in the calculation of 1311 levels; and how
deviations from assumed air flow was compensated
for. No references on air flow for the scrubbers
exist except that air was drawn at a rate of 2.0 cfm
(Paas and Singlevich 1950b) to 2.5 cfm (Paas 1951)
_-fora.total.volume of 20,000 cubic feet (Paas and -
Singlevich 1950b). Air flow could also introduce an
uncertainty if the air flow was within a range
(i.e., 2.0 to 2.5 cfm) (Paas 1951).

FILTER REMOVAL:

The asbestos filter (through which air was drawn
before flowing through the scrubber) would have
removed around 3 - 4% (Healy 1948) or 5 - 10%

{Saas and Singlevich 1950a) of the total atmospheric
311, Whether this removal was taken into account
needs to be determined.

PLATEOUT:
Potential plateout in the unremovable lines between

the filter and the scrubber could have caused a
negative bias.



March-April 1951

BS
T
J
B

iS)
i=}
T

Count
a
T

1
e
Jeg 18d Udjodolg

0 OM: Hog
-100 0 100 200 300 400
DIFFER48

Figure 5,5 — Corrected 1951 data (observed*4,8 ~ modeled)

March-April 1951

30 T T t TT T
do2
mt
20 g
8
3 jor 3
: ° 3
| tor Ey
| 0 q n mun 0
| -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
DIF48MOD128
|
|

Figure 5.6 — Corrected 1951 data: observed and correction factor applied to
modeled values

17



Klementiev A.A.
A.A.Klementiev: List of main publications

1, AA Klementiev

Optimal process with random termination. N-Y. Consultants Bureau. Automation and remote control.
6, 1970,

2. AA Klementiev, A.LYashin

On the problems of estimation and control in health system. In: Control problems in technology,
economy and biology. M., Nauka, 1974, (RUSSIAN).

3. A.M-Petrovsky, A.A.Klementiev, AL Yashin

On the use of the method of control with incomplete data in certain public health management
problems. Proc. Vith Congr. IFAC. Boston, Cambridge. 1975.

4, A.A.Klementiev

Mathematical approach to developing a simulation model of health care system. Laxenburg, Austria,
1976, 28p. HASA; RM-76-65.

5. A.A.Klementiev

A computer method for projecting a population age-sex structure, Laxenburg, Austria, 1976, 26p.
TASA; RM-76-36.

6. AMPetrovsky, A.A.Klementiev, A.LYashin

Use of the control theory methods for the solving of the health management problems, In: Biologic
aspects of the control theory. M. Institute for Control Sci., 1976, (Russian)

7, A.AKiementiev :

On the estimation of morbidity. Laxenburg, Austria, 1977, 19p. IASA; RM-77-43,

8. P.Fleissner, A.A-Klementiev

Health care system models: a review. Laxenburg, Austria, 1977, 76p. IASA; RM-77-49. .

9. K-Atsumi, A Fujimasa, S Kaihara, A Klementiev

An approach to building a universal health care model: morbidity model for degenerative diseases,
Laxenburg, Austria, 1978, 28p. HASA; RM-77-06.

10, A.A.Klementiev

Health care modelling: morbidity estimation for degenerative diseases. Proc. of Intern. Symp.
"Simulation-77". Zurich, Acta press, 1977,

IL. A.A.Klementiev, E.N.Shigan

- Aggregate model for estimating health care System resources requrements. Laxenburg, Austria, 1978,

28p. IIASA; RM-78-21,

12, L.LBorodkin, A.A.Klementiev, A.M.Petrovsky, A.LYashin

Probiems in public health, N.Y., Consultunts Bureau, Automation and remote control, 6, 1979.

13. A.A.Klementiey

Modelling of health resources allocation. N.Y., Consultants Bureau, Automation and Remote Control,
10, 1980

14. A.A.Klementiev >

Aggregate model of health resourses allocation. Proc. of All-Union Conf “Systems analysis and
modelling in health field", Novokuznetsk, 1980. (RUSSIAN)

15. A.A.Klementiev

Modelling of the restricted health resources: The RASPR model, Proc. of All-Union Conf. "System
modelling of socic-economic processes". Voronezh, 1980. (RUSSIAN)

16. A.A. Klementiev

Degenerative-type diseases prevalence estimation. In: Applied system analysis methods in health
management, M., Institute for Contro} Sci., 1981. (RUSSIAN).

17, A.A Klementiev



ALEXANDRE A. KLEMENTIEV, Ph.D.

Present Address
5023 N. Mildred Street . Phone: (253) 798-3528
Tacoma, WA 98407 Fax: (253) 798-2947
OBJECTIVE N/A
EDUCATION Mathematical Epidemiology (Ph.D.), Institute of Cybernetics, Kiev, Ukraine, 1991.
Applied Mathematics in Automation and Remote Control (Ph.D.), Moscow
Institute for Physics and Technology, Dolgoproudniy, Russia, 1971.
Electrical Engineering (M.S.), Moscow Institute for Physics and Technology,
Dolgoproudniy, Russia, 1966.
AWARDS Malcolm L. Peterson Award (1994, Washington Physicians for Social

PROFESSIONAL Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Tacoma, WA. Epidemiologist II

EXPERIENCE

Responsibility), : ,
Best Diploma Research Award (1966, Moscow Institute for Physics and
Technology, Dolgoproudniy, Russia,).

(Dec.1996- Present). Computer modeling for Public Health related projects:
Establishing Health Intervention Priorities;

Designing databases, such as “Mother and Child Health”, “Domestic Violence”;
Conducting projects on epidemiology.

CDC/WHO, Training Course Evidence-Based Noncommunicable

Diseases Prevention, Moscow, Russia, Instructor, (Apr.2003). Taught

course “Introduction to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System”.
Chelyabinsk-McGill Project in Population Child Health, Chelyabinsk, Russia.
Instructor, (Jan.2000 - Feb.2000). Taught courses Biostatistics and Epidemiology.

Tacoma Community College, Tacoma, WA. Instructor (Jan.1996-Dec. 1996).
Teaching course Business Data Processing, Lab assisting for the course
Programming Visual Basic.

Tom H. Foulds and Associated Counsel: Hanford Litigation Office, Seattle,
WA. Consultant, Expert witness (1994 - Present).

* Developed computer model for estimation of radioactive Todine-131 releases into
the atmosphere from Hanford Site in 1944 - 1948;

- Estimated of Pu-239 releases into the atmosphere from Hanford Site;

~ Developed computer model for prevalence estimation of degenerative type
diseases.

NeuRobotics, Inc., Puyallup, WA. Senior Research Scientist (1992-1994),

+ Provided professional analysis for airborne radionuclide releases including
estimates for population health impacts;

- Constructed and supplemented GIS representations of radionuclide
contamination for Eastern Washington;

+ Served as scientific and technical translator for Russian scientific articles,
research papers, and texts;

~ Established NeuRobotics support groups in Moscow, Kiev, and Vladivostok and
facilitated communication with these groups via E-mail.

Institute of Control Sciences (Russian Academy of Sciences), Moscow, Russia. *



HOCKOBCKER OPRERA TPygonoro xeAcuorO SHANE

SHSHKO-TEXHNUECKUA HHCTHTYT
141700, Homespyonst, Mocwe, 052. Ton, 108-40-68

| or,

Bumnexa Bs yaeGroro AAaHA BoInycKHAKA MOTH 1966 1 una :
Knemerreena Anexcaunpa Anexcanaponima

HapMeHogaHne Kypcor Facoy
Maresatuuecknit ananus 380
Ananworieckan veomeTpun 132
Flabpepenumansusie ypanvenin 132
Has MaTemaruKn 9
Teopua byuxunit xomnnexcuu Tepencunrtx 85
Ypasnenns Matemuruucckoit duane : 149
Teopermueckan Mexunna 132
OOmas disnxa 760
- Teopernuecxas dusuxa 149
- O6inas xmas 102
a Wgocrpannii ssn 520
i Ocvoat utpxenepiiare Tpoexraporaine 34
1 Ocuons nporpammuposanna 66
: . Baeuenue B sxonore 32
H Besonacuocrs xusneqearenbuocrn 36 :
i Ecrecrsenno-nayunpie XYpcei no BEIGopy . . : 38
: _ - Obemexenepuda uOuroTORKa 34
: Guexrprteckne nem 132
i Srexrponusie npHGopsr 134
i * Pamnorexnuxa 326
Hemymcunte # pponnie upuGapn 66
: Paxymererckaa nasopaxropis 224
i Ocuosu oGpaGorne curaanos 66
3 Ocnossr Teopun azromatuuecxoro yapasacuma 66
} Teopaa yrpasiterra u comunito-KoHOMHYCGKEA : |
i cacremax 66
| Teopus croxacruccnex cucrem 98
i Onrumannuce ynpapsienne 8 aymamnucexnx cncremax 99
SBM a ocnons: uporpammupopauusa : 9
Caysaiinne Rpoueccsl B cHeremaa ynpusncind 34
Asropamaeckie mouei B Oponeccas yipusnenns 5}
Oxpana tpyna 16
Tpaxruxa a aymmomuas ¢ 3028



aare

fC WASA ~ BUS venior kesearch Scholar bitp:/ /werw itasa.ac.at/ Admin /PE/ Jobs/ecsseascl. him)

Tasks

Assumes responsibility for the advancement of the ECS set of mathematical analysis
tools. Works independently on all aspects of model development, model application,
result interpretaion, and report preparation for externally funded ch contracts.

- f Pea nirtin :
Profile
Ph.D. in mathematics, energy-economics, operations research, environmental sciences
or similar discipline. Demonsirated accomplishments in the field of mathematical
modeling. Modeling-related programming and computer skills (PC and UNIX
environment). Good peer-reviewed publication record. Ability to work independently in
an interdisciplinary and international team. At least ten, years of experience in the
relevant research areas.

Appointment Terms .

The successful candidate will be offered a one-year, fixed-term contract, beginning as
soon as possible. The salary is competitive and commensurate with experience. It is
exempt from taxation in Ausiria, but subject to the principle of income aggregation. The
appointment includes moving and settlement allowances. An exceptionally beautiful
working environment with a true international and interdisciplinary institute are added
rewards for those seeking association with a highly motivated and productive research
team.

Applications

To apply send a cover letter, resume, plus names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers
of three work-related references, as well as copies of two recent publications/papers
(articles, research papers, model documentation, proposals, minutes of meetings, etc.) to:

Walter Foith, Personnel Administrator

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (HASA)
Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

Fax:-43) 2236-713-13 , ,

E-mail: foithw@iiasa.ac.at

Review of applications will begin immediately.
For further information about the post, please contact:

Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic

Project Leader

Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies Project
Tel: (+43) 2236-807-411

E-mail: naki@iiasa.ac.at

For general information about our institute, Please visit our IASA web sile or go right to
the ECS homepage.

AB IND AT Ae



’
we

i : PNL-8449
: ing Room . . ; UC-605

ANSP AAS

Description of the Process
Used to Create 1992 Hanford
Mortality Study Database

E, S. Gilbert
j. A. Buchanan
N. A. Holter

December 1992

Prepared for the U.S, Department of Energy
under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830

Pacific Northwest Laboratory
‘ Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy
by Battelle Memorial Institute

6rb8-INd

€% Battelle

pAAKA. Tess



| ., |
i a :
i
i TM' etmosphecic releases from the Hanford site ® B. A. Namen . 209
Y ‘Table 1. Continued,
i Mean of Mean of 8 ‘Mean of
} Heeb's estimate based = moonitoring estimate
} original Gn stack coefficient Primary based on air Primary reference.
estimate itoci of reference for monitoring for attoosphesie
Month/Year (TBq/month) Bq! ‘variation ‘stack estimate (FBq/saonth) ——inonitoring data |
atl6y 06 16 - 016 GH 196i as GE 1962m 4
SIU6L a4 12 - OIG . GEIS. gg GE 1962m
as WEI as 12 O16 GB 1967k 17 GE 1962m
HAI 07 10 0.6 GE 1961E ag GE 1962m
AGL 00 04 0.16 GE 19624 06 GE 1962m
U6 06 0s O16 GE 1962) 06 GE 1963m
262 Od 04 0.16 GE 1962 05 GE 1963
3/1462 Ot 03 O16 = GE 19624 02 GE 1963: 1
4nte2 2x10? 23 0.16 GE 1962¢ 12 GE 1963
S162 1x10? 01 O16 GE 1962¢ 02 GE 19630
6nt6a 2x 107 i G16 GE 19622 12 GE 19630
We 7x 107 04 016 GB 19624 07 GE 1963
! 4x 107 a4 O16 = GE 19624 Ad GE 1963m
j onu62 03 12 016 GE 1963} 42 GE 1963m
10/1/62 2% 107 02 016 GE 1962k 06 GB 1963m
Juez 2x 107 02 06 GE 19621, 19 GE 1963m
tane2 as 036 GE 1943 At GE 1963m,
i ues 2x 104 02 0.16 GE 19635 04 GE 1964m
{ 21163 1x 107 0. O16 GB 1963¢ 1 GE 1964ra
: 3/463 5x 107 02 016 GE 19634 03 GE 1964m
} 4163 6x 107 03 016 GE 1963e 03 GE 1964m “|
563 5x 107 02 0.16 GE 1963f 02 GE 1964 4
a63 6.1 08 016 = GE 15 GE 1964m
U63 9x10 03 016 GE 1963b 03 GB 1964m ff
8/1163 1x 107 02 06 GE 1963) 02 GE 1964m
on 3.0 32 0.16 GE 1963} 22 GE 1964m
10/1763 1x 197 03 16 GE 1963k 05 GE 1964n
11/1163 7x10 03 0.16 = GE 1963. Oo. GE 1964m, 1
121463 2x 107 06 06 GE 19640 02 GE 1964m 1
164 Px 107 01 0.16 GE 1964 03 PNE 1965 ;
H 264 4x 107 O4 0116 GE 1964 01 PNL 1965
64 3x 107% 03 016 GE 1964d 04 PNL 1965
Hy 4164. 3107 0.2 0.16 GE 1964e 06 PNL 1965
{ SUtN64 6x 107 04 0.16 GE 1964f 07 PNL 1965
} O/I64 5x 107 OS 0.16 GE 1964g 05 PNL 1965
H THI6A 2x 107 02 O16 GE 1064h 00 - PNL 1965 .
{ a/ti64 04 016 GE 1964, 08 PNL 1965 .
} O1I64 2x 10" o4 0.16 GE 1964) 03 PNL 1965 {
i 10/1164 O41 06 0.16 GE 1964 06 PNL 1965 rhe 4
| LA 9x 10" 06 - 046 GE 19641, : 04 PNL 3965 Bd
| . 12/164 7x 10% a 0.16 GE 19652 0.9 PNL 1965 fy!
i Wes 6x 107 oo 0.16 GE 19656 00 PNL 1966 :
265 6x 107 Ot 016 GE 1965c 01 PNL 1966
i 3/165 2x 107 04 0.6 GE 19654 02 PNL 1966 \
ails, 3x 107 06 06 GE 1965e 06 PNL 1966
SHES 02 07 016 GE 1965f 03 PNL 1966
i 6165 6x 107 0s 0.16 GE 1965g 29 PNL 1966
TES 4x 1077 02 0.16 GE 1965 14 PNL 1966
8/63 3x 107 00 016 GE 1965) 03 PNL 1966
911465 8x 10> Qi 0.16 GE 19655 03 PNL 1966
10/65 5x 107 06 016 GE 1965k 06 PNL 1966 ;
} MES 4x 107 04 0.16 GE 1965L, Os BNL 1966 3
i 12/65 6x 107 02 016 GB 1966 02 ° PNL 1966
{ UU66 Ol 05 0.46 ISOCHEM 19668 on PNL 1967
266 8x 10% 0.2 0.16 ISOCHEM 19665 14 PME 1967
3/1166 2x10? 03 0.16 ISOCHEM 1966< 0.9 PNL 1967 []:
{ ANU66 7x 107 as 0.16 ISOCHEM 19664 01 PNL 1967 ya
| S166 4x 107 2107 016 — ISOCHEM 1966. 03 PNL 1967 ify
SNI66 03 6X 107 0.16 ISOCHEM 1966f 06 PNL 1967 it
7166 7% 107 1x07 016 ISOCHEM 1966, 09 PNL 1967 iyi
| 8/1/66 9x 107 9x 10 0.16 ISOCHEM 1966h 02 PNL 1967 js
9166 2x 102 1x to? 0.16 ISOCHEM 1966; 00 PNL 1967 [|].
1OME6* 2x 107% 0.6 016 ISOCHEM 1966} oo PNE 1967 |: 1
1UY66 8x 10% 02 0.16 ISOCHEM 1966k 02 - PRL 1967 Pry
- 12/66 9x 10-8 2x 107 O16 = ISOCHEM 19672 0.9 PNL‘1967 H
Wu6? 1x 107? OS 016 = ISOCHEM 19675 02° PNL 1969 4
2n67 6x 107 202 G16 ISOCHEM 1967 o4 PNL 1969
3/67 2x 167 9x 107 "O16 = ISOCHEM 19674 or PHL 1969 °
i 467 1x19 8x10". O16 =~ TSOCHEM 19676, “06 - PAL 1969
| SHUG? 2% 107 02 6.16 _ISOCHERM 1967f 00 PHL 1969 E
il



\
q
!

i
i
i
i

File
February 10, 1988
Page 7

Conclusions: - Lo. fo, . .: a

Because hand-pump samples were mainly (if not exclusively) used to measure
plume levels in the environment and the location of measurements is usually _
not provided, the data is not useful for assessing public doses from 1311,

D. Little Suckers

Little suckers were Mostly used to collect air samples within buildings

{Health Instrument Section 1946a). Only in September 1945 is mention made of
offsite “Little Sucker" samples.

REFERENCES CITED
Andersen, B. V., and J. K. Soldat. 1956a. Radioactive Contamination in the .

Hanford Environs for the Period October, November, December, 1955.
Hi-40871, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Andersen, B. Y., and J. K. Soldat. 1956b. Radioactive Contamination in the

Hanford Environs for the Period April, May, June, 1956. HW-44215, General
Electric Company, Richland, Washington. . .

Botsford, C. W. 1945. Study of Calibration of Victoreen Integrons:

Progress Report. W-7-2271, E. 1. du Pont de Nemours and Company ,
Richland, Washington.

Cantril, S. T., and J. W. Healy. 1945. Iodine Metabolism with Reference
to 1341.” wi-7-2604; €, 1. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Richland,
Washington. ee . mo we

Gamertsfelder, C.C. 1947a. H. I. Environs Report for the First Half of
March 1947. Hi-7-6004, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Gamertsfelder, C. C. 1947b. H, I. Environs Report for the Last Half of May
1947. HW-7-6262, General £1

ectric Company, Richland, Washington.

Health Instrument Section. 1946a. H. I. Report on 200 Area and Environs
1945. HW-7-1115, Del., E. I.

du Pont de Nemours and Company, Richland,
“Washington. .

Health Instrument Section. 1946b. Medical Department, Health Instrument
Section, Manual of Standard Procedures, Site Survey (Special Studies).
Hil-7-4279, General Electric Company,

Richland, Washington.

Healy, J. W. 1945. H. I. Special Studies Report for the Week Ending 8/4/45.
HW-3-2894, Del, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Richiand, Washington.

4014220



Introduction

To support the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) Project's
objective of estimating the radiation dose that individuals could have
received as a result of emissions from the Hanford Site, HEDR Project staff
developed a database of historical environmental measurements. The data from
these measurements are made available to the applicable HEDR tasks and the
public. .

Environmental sampling for radiological contaminants has been conducted at and
around the Hanford Site since operations began in the mid-1940s. This report

. provides information on the measurement of ambient environmental radiation
* levels in the air and on the collection of air, rain, and snow samples for

radiological analysis from 1945 through 1957. The information in this docu-
ment was compiled to assess the type and amount of data collected during these
years. No databases of historical air, rain, and snow concentration and/or ©
measurement data have been created. During the 1940s and early 1950s, the
equipment and techniques used for collecting radiological samples and -
wonitoring radiation levels were often inaccurate. This was due to the
newness of the nuclear industry and the haste with which the industry
(including the facilities and monitoring equipment at the Hanford Site) was
developed. The result was that the air monitoring data are insufficient for
use in the HEDR Project. Because access to these data may be of interest to
the public, however, an overview of the available air monitoring data for
1945-1957 is being published.

Data Quality Objectives

The information in this report has been compiled without analysis. The

original, purpose was to provide an overview.of the data.available. Because it: - -

was determined that the air monitoring data would not be used in the HEDR
Project, no data quality objectives were established nor were the data
submitted to a rigorous data quality review. The information presented in
this report should only be used as a guide to the original documents. The
original documents need to be consulted directly prior to use of any of the
data presented in this report.

Genera } ion

For the most part, the data are reported here in the units provided in the
original documents. No attempt was made to quantitatively convert the data to
currently used units. Radiation exposure was reported in units of
williroentgen (mr) and milliroentgen-equivalent-physical (mrep) through the
third quarter of 1953. The roentgen (abbreviated r for old or R for new) is a
unit for defining exposure in the air to x- or gamma radiation (ionizing



|
|

4.2 Air Dispersion Model

A defensible work in this area requires a validated and accepted model for long-range transport
over complex terrain, with deposition and chemical transformation algorithms. Some of these
models have been tested across North America The main experiments are the Cross-
Appalachian Tracer Experiment (CAPTEX) and the Across North America Experiment

A carefull model validation requires model stratification, where several selected model regimes
are studied and compared to analytical or field results. This stratification should be based on
predominant physics that the model must account for, and this stratification must be easy to
verify. The recommended steps to validate both RITM and RATCHET would be:

Q Near surface, non-buoyant, rural area, flat terrain, non-depositing, and SO2 emission.
Concentrations should be computed from 50m to 1000m. (Barad, 1958).

Q Elevated. buoyant release (187 m), flat terrain, non-depositing, and SF6 emission.
Concentrations should computed for a distance extending from 500m to 50000 m. (iu and ©
Moore, 1984).

a Elevated buoyant release (100 m), flat terrain, depositing particles (10 microns), and
emissions of particelate. Deposition should be computed over a range of 100m to 10000m
downwind distances. (Thé, to be published).

Only after an air dispersion model has been tested under controlled conditions, such as the

described above, should one attempt to calibrate the model for the Hanford site.

4.3 Terrain Elevations

It is clear from Figure 1 that the local terrain is not flat. A simple facility permit air dispersion
model would have been rejected if flat terrain was assumed. In Napier (1994) it was clear that
the validation went ahead even whén “Rattlesnake mountain shields that cell from Hanford
emissions”.

The Columbia River Valley and other topographical features will modify air concentration and
deposition fluxes. This happens in ways that cannot be estimated by flat terrain models such as
RATCBET.

At least two U.S. EPA Lagrangian Gaussian puff models, for long range transport, exist. These
codes, MESOPUFF and CALPUFF, have been adequately validated, are well documented,
reviewed, available with source code, and free of charge.



laeteGe ede. 2. G50, EXH-F

Project Number
<*Battelle sain
Pacific Northwest Laboratories Jj
File/LB
ye Janna Shaw
Dew June 17, 1993 ate
To. ‘Dill Shipler nn Ba ~
on oh
From Sandra Cannon ee

‘Subject ~Hanford's Air Monitoring Program from 1945-1955

Overview

Eva Mart wroie a summary, dated February 10, 1988, of the air monitoring equipment that
was used from 1945-1955 at Hanford. it addresses ionization chambers and air Sampling
devices (filter units, caustic scrubbers, hand pumps). in the conclusions for each piece of
equipment, Eva explains why the data measured would not be valid. On a few, she concedes that
perhaps the air data from that particular monitor could be used to QA some other data.
According to Mike Thiede, this is an important document because it shows why we dropped the
air data and concentrated on the vegetation instead.

The document is brief, well organized, and fairly well written. It has no Page numbers for the
direct quotations, however. it would have to be QA‘d.

Recommendation

| envision the summary environmental Monitoring report (Milestone 0502C) to include a
discussion of why we stopped work on the air data and concantrated on vegetation. Eva's report
would be the perfect backup material to include in that summary as an appendix. That means for
this report | am recommending the full-blown treatment because that is what we will be doing

br the 0502C summary report. : a . ef “a3.

Jurca Weta EO Rene ae Re CAB
$e, Acpe re Ata sS0Rm

4014213



206 Health Physics
remainder of the process ducing October through Decem-
ber 1948; these filters Temoved about 47% (between 27
and 68%).of the iodine from this pathway.

Although this emission control equipment reduced
the release factor to about 0.25, it was insufficient to
Solve the iodine emission problem, This problem was

“eventually solved through the develdpirient ana installa.‘

tion of the so-called silver reactors. These were stainless
steel vessels containing silver-nitrate-coated, unglazed
ceramic saddles retained in two beds between grates and
wire screens. These silver reactors replaced’ the water
scrubbers in T and B Plants; the first was installed in B
Plant in October 1950, and ail the dissolvers (there were
3 in each processing plant) were so equipped by January
1951. The silver reactors in the dissolver off-gas stream
worked extremely well when conditions were kept opti-
mally. Iodine removal efficiencies of over 99.9% were
Observed. However, if the temperature was too low,
moisture collected and the acid destroyed the silver
Teactor. If the temperature was too high, the silver nitrate
Melted and ran off of the ceramic saddles. Provisions
were made for both steam and electric heating of the
dissolver gases entering the silver Teactors, but problems
did occur. In addition, chemical impurities could accu-
mauulate in the silver reactors, Tendering them less effi-
cient, Replacing or “regenerating” the silver reactors by
spraying the ceramic saddles with fresh silver nitrate
solution could remedy this (eg., Clack 1954). The
Primary concems about Heeb’s release factors revolve
around the assumptions made regarding the efficiencies
of the silver reactors and the frequencies of their failures,
Heeb vsed a series of measurements of the overall
release factor rhade by Warren (1961) at the REDOX and
PUREX plants in 1959-1960 as the basis for releases
from T, B, REDOX, and PUREX Operating with silver
reactors, afier a period of operational break-in in 1951.
Heeb used summaries of stack release measurements
made by Paas and Soldat (1951) for the first months of
1951. Heeb applied release factors based on Warren's
1959-1960 REDOX measurements to the entire period
of REDOX operations and to the latter Period of B and T
Plant operations, .
When Warren's measurements are used to generate
@ stochastic release factor, the result is a Jognormal
distribution of release factor with a median of 0.0125,

geometric mean of 0.0124, geometric standard deviation _

of 4.12, and mean of 0.0339: In Heeb’s summary report
(Heeb 1994), the monthly releases are presented as the
means, but for some of the valnes Hoffman et al. (1999)
discovered that Heeb inadvertently used the median
Telease factor. The HEDR source term, comected for this
error (Napier 1999), is presented as the second column in
Table 1.

August 2002, Volume 83, Namber 2

Problems with the HEDR source term model

Various observations and Suggestions have been
made concerning Heeb’s approach to the atmospheric
source tenn after about 1950. The error of using median
rather than mean release factors was corrected by Napier
(1999).. One observation is that the Paas and Soldat
(1951) data were taken at T Plant and may not well
Teptesent simultaneous operations at B Plant, where the
silver reactors may have behaved differently. Other
observations center on Heeb’s use of the REDOX and
PUREX release factors from 1959-1960 for other times
and other facilities. The intent of using the release factors
for earlier ‘releases in these Plants, and applying the
REDOX release factor to the T and B Plants, was stated
by Heeb to be that they represented a long-term set of
data. However, the release factors are not quite appro-
Priate for reasons such as the following:

* The T and B Plaats use the bismuth-phosphate process,
whereas the REDOX process involves organic sol-
vents. Thus, the REDOX Plant may well have had
differing characteristics of release of the *'{ that
Temains after the dissolution step; ‘
The REDOX and PUREX Plants had additional nitric
acid recovery systems in place that were found 10 trap
“\.. most of the radio-iodine escaping from the silver
reactors” (Warren 1961), These acid absorbers were
installed in both plants in late 1957, and were not
Present at startup (1952 for REDOX, 1956 for
PUREX). Such acid-recovery systems were never
installed in the B and T Plants; and

The REDOX Plant had a sand filter installed on the
building ‘and ‘process vessel ventilation. This was
installed in August 1954, after about 2.5 y of prior
operation. . .

In addition, it has been noted that even though the
1959-1960 data were used to establish the Telease
factors, the Heeb model resulis are not consistent with
the 1959-1960 REDOX emissions.

Although various, arguments can be made that

_ Heeb’s results ste adequate, a Separate approach may be

more desirable. Stack emissions monitoring was resumed
at Hanford in 1950, and became routine in 1951. It is
possible to use the stack-data directly, either to develop
directly applicable release factors or as the actual Telease
estimate, , :

HANFORD STACK MONITORING DATA

B and T Plants before 1950

Stack gas monitoring systems were originally in-
stalled in the B and T Plant stacks during construction.
However, the devices were Primitive and inaccurate,



22 Health Physics

Of sampling lines of different lengths at REDOX and
PUREX. He found abouta 10 to 12% difference between
the lines, but the higher transmission came throngh the
longer lines. His conclusion was that “In view of the
aa Terences inthe iodine concentrations in the gas
teanbes for the rather different paice of sampling sy.
tems; it is concluded that rétéation of gaseous “Tin the
sampling piping is of minor importance.” 4 ‘small cor-
Fection factor with a uniform distribution between 1.0
and 1.] has been assigned. See Table 2,

Schwendiman (1954) reports thar “Analytical meth-
ods and counting corrections for "YT can be expected to
give curie values within +10-15% of the tue concen-
ation in the scrubber solution.” However, in the same

The measurements made by Soldat during this :

Period mostly aligned with Periods of dissolver opera-
tion. However, some of them were made when no
dissolving was Occurring, and others Tay have been

Operation ceased, Thus, some of Soldat’s measurements
may have included iodine from earlier dissolving ‘Opera-
tions and missed some from the current dissolving. This

On the basis of the measurements made at T Plant
from August through December 1950 and the Uncertainty

Tange of 0.21 to 0,29,

The monthly releases from B and T Plants can be
estimated using this release factor and the iodine
throughput in these facilities produced by Heeb’s reactor
aud processing plant accounting model. The uncertainties
incladed in Heeb's model involving the iodine intro-
duced into the dissolver for’ number of tons dissolved,
reactor power peaking, dégree of iodine Saturation,

August 2002, Volame 83, Nomber 2

length of time since discharge from Teactor, and uncer-
tainties-in Spectrum-averaged cross Section (Heeb 1994)
are also considered. The revised Mean esti column
3 of Table i, are compared with Heeb’s (1994) original

1951 placed their efficiency rate for ly Temoval at
99.9%. Although they were not Positioned to entrap the
small portion (5 to 10%) of that escaped from the
plutonium-bearing solutions in the plants after the dis-
solving phase, silver Teactor performance was so encour-
aging overall that the decay time between irradiation and
dissolving (called metal cooling times at Hanford) were
dropped from 80 to 90 d to 67 din mid February, Decay
periods were lowered further in March, and then de-
creased to an average of only 48 d in April. During these
months, the average emission level for ‘i hovered
between 2 to 5% of that which was evolved in the
dissolver cells. In late April, however, a “material change
in the efficiency of the silver reactor” wag Teported. By
mid May, with cooling times ranging between 44 (9 55
days, the fraction of evolved '*"f that was released to the
atmosphere &teatly increased; in one dissolving, 34%
‘Was reported to be released (Soldat 1951e). Additionally,

"With the greater throughput of irradiated metal, more #3]

ever, by late Joly, the silver reactor filters Were reported
to be “easily saturated”, and “failing.” The filters in



208 Health Physics August 2002, Volume 83, Number 2
Table 1. Continued.
Mean of Mean of Stack Mean of
Hexb’s estimate based monitoring estimate
original on stack cocfficient Primay based on aie Primary reference
estimate monitoring of reference for monitoring ‘for atmospheric
Monil/Year  (FBgfmonth)  (TBq/month) variation stack estima © (TBq/month) —monitoring dara
TOSS 69 23 "O13 ‘Keene 1955k 24 GE 19554
155 03 10 0.15 Keens 1955. 20 GE 1955d
12S 28 Os 015 GE 19562 16 GE 19554
1/56 06 02 014 GE 1956f 16 GE 1956a
2H1S6 16 08 0.12 GE 1956, 14 GE 1956a
BAIS6 04 . 07 0.16 GE 1956h 20 GE 19568
4NIS6 03 27 0.15 GE 1956i 59 GE 1956
SALIS6 23 13 0.16 GE 1956, 30 GE 19566
GSE 24 50 O16 GE 1956k 57 GE 1956
Mus6 02 03 ols GE 1956L 47 GE 19560
8/156 o1 02 017 GE 1956 34 GE 1956c
NSE 02 08 0.16 GE 19560 26 GE 1956¢
10/1/56 OL 03 0.16 GE 19560 24 GE 19564
1HUS6 05 22 0.18 GE 1956p 20 GE 19564
YAKE 18 54 0.16 GE 1957 16 GE 1956d
Ws? a4 17 0.16 GE 1957 16 GE 1957a
wet 06 27 015 GE 1957g 14 GE i957a
+ iS? 03 1 018 GE 1957 20 GE 1957a
i NS? 10 18 0.20 GE 19571 29 GE 195%
t ss? 08 09 0.16 GE 1957} 30 GE 195%
: us? 05 06 0.1? GB 1957 400 GE 1957
UWus7 12 27 ON7 GE 1957L. 47 GE 195%
aS? 747 16 019 GE 1957m 7 34 GE 1957¢ .
ons? 21 08 0.16 GE 1957n 26 GE i957c
1001/57 27 06 0.16 GE 19570 95 . GE 1957d
1s? 43 19 038 GE 1957p 20 GE 1957
tons? 19 13 0.16 GE 19582 47 GE 19576
1AlsB 3 12 0.16 GE 19585 37 GE 19591.
258 147 23 + 06 GE 1958¢ 34 GE 1959
BSS 92 59 0.16 GE 1958¢ 48 GE 1959L.
ANIS8 72 20 0.16 GE 1958e 10 GE 1959L.
SESS 126 16 0.16 GE 1958f WW GE 1959L
OFS 4t - 10 0.16 GE 19583 137 GE 1959L
TANS8 41 OF 0.16 GE 1958h 13 GE 1959L.
8158 27 10 0.16 GE 19S ai GE 19591
911158 32 25 0.16 GE 1958) 6.2 GE 1959L
YOVLAS8 07 » 13 7 0.16 GE 1958k 57 GE 1959L.
L UIs 14 26 0.16 = | GE 1958. 48 GE 19591,
12S8 Ll 04 0.16 GE 19552 37 GE 1960,
: 14159 09 0? 016 GB 1959 52 GE 1960m
: 259 05 10 0.16 GH 1959¢ © 22 GE 1960m
: ayt59 07 07 0.16 GE 19594 12 GE 1960m
: ANS Os 15 0.16 GE 1959e * 19 GE 1960m.
t S59 07 18 0.16 GE 19598 09 GE 1960m
GI159 “4a 13 0.16 GE 1959g 09 GE 1960m
i M59 04 07 0.16 GE 19593 35 GE 1960m
q 859 12 ray 0.16 GE 1959h 14 GE 1960 ~
. 91759 18 16 0.16 GE 19591 07 GE 1960m
HOMH/59 09 12 0.16 GE 1959} 13 GE 1960
nss9 07 1s 0.16 GE 1959k 16 GE 1960m
ne 32159 Lo 7 0.16 GE 19602 og GE 1960m
18 160 35 18 0.16 GE 19606 22 GE 1961
21160 19 to 0.16 GE 1960c as GE 196im
360 “02 03 0.16 GE 19604 O4 GE 1961m
\ 4160 04 rR 0.16 GE 1960e 27 GE 1961
H Sit6o os 10 0.16 GE 1960f * 03 GE196im
: 6/1460 0.1 08 + 0.16 GE 1960 09 GE196im
i . Tilo 06 42 0.16 GE 1960h 07 GE 196im
a 8/1/60 235 26 016 GE 19605 09 GE 196i
- 9nW60 02 - 27 0.16 GE 1960 13: GE 196im
a 10/1/60 0.0 03 0.16 GE 1960k 0.7 GE 196im
H Juuso 05 12 0.16 GE 1960L a2 GE196Im
12/1160 14 20 0.16 GE 196la 04 GE 196m
; 161 04 12 0.16 GE 1961 05 GE 1962m
QE 05 07 0.16 _ GE 196ic 02 GE 1962m
B61 Os 12. 0.16 GE 196id 03 GE 1962
Ant Ol. 10 O16 GB 1961¢ 04 GE 19620
S61 03 12 0.16 GE 1961f - On GB 1962m
G61 as 14 0.16 GE 196ig 08 GE 1962m

: WNM6L G2 10 0.16 GE 1961h O4 GE 1962m



svi
ins

Pacific Northwest Laboratories Internal Distribution
DH Denham
iB
Date February 10, 1988
To File
rom ET Mart EY"
Subject

“Batielle wee

Hanford's Air Monitoring Program From 1945 To 1955 -
A Compilation of Notes

The air monitoring program at Hanford developed and changed from 1945 to 1955
as experience led to improved techniques. The air monitoring program
contained two basic types of monitors: ionization chambers and air sampters.
The air samplers consisted of filter devices or caustic scrubbers. This memo
discusses the basic types of monitors considering interpretation of 131]
levels from the data.

JONIZATION CHAMBERS

Environmental ionization chambers were used from the start and continued past
55. They consisted of detachable chambers and integrons. The detachable
chambers included "W", "S", and "C* types (as they designated them) and were
made at Hanford (Health Instrument Section 1946). The chambers were located
on specified outdoor stands, and later some were added to 614 Buildings. The
first integrons were installed in March 1945 {Health Instrument Group 1945).
prey rere, always located in the Environmental Monitoring Shacks (614

uildings). :

The ionization chambers did not specifically monitor 1311, Moreover, the

detachable chambers measured general radiation levels coming from the air and
ground. Indeed, theyround may have even been the major dose contributor, as
indicated by the following: - ~ Tome - .

The Health Instrument Group report (1945) states that at each location |
the readings on these chambers were due to ground contamination, not
from atmospheric radiation.

The first quarter 1946 report (Healy 1946b) states that the close
correlation between the decrease in readings over certain time periods
and the half life of 1311 indicate that a large portion of the reading
on those chambers comes from ground contamination and not from
atmospheric radiation. - :

Also, the integron units had considerable problems, especially at first.
They did not calibrate properly according to reports by Botsford (1945) and
the Health Instrument Group (1945), although a new amplifier design may have
-corrected this problem early (Botsford 1945). They. were reported (Health
Instrument Group 1945) to be unreliable, often showing readings not due to
radiation.

— 4014214



Exhibit 7



E “Ine umternanionat insuane tor Appued Systems Analysis (MASA) , . hitp:/ Avworemscad.org/eum. html A

The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
(MASA)

Membership: IIASA is supported by National Member Organizations (NMO's) in 17
countries: the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Khazakstan, the Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, and Ukraine. NMO's are non-governmental scientific
organizations. The American NMO is the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
The Russian NMO is the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Location: The Institute is located in Laxenburg, Austria, outside Vienna, in a former
Hapsburg summer palace provided by the Austrian government for a token annual
rent payment,

Steff: Of a total staff of 220 people, ASA has approximately 100 full-time senior
research scholars. The staff is recruited primarily from NMO countries. There are no
quotas. The Director has full authority for all hiring and, if need be, firing. Sctentists
are on fixed-term contracts from a few months to several years, The in-house research
staff is supplemented by an active network of 1,700 alumni and extensive additional
collaboration with individuals and organizations throughout the world. The Institute
also conducts a summer combined work and study program for a select group of sixty
young international scientists. The program's objective is to expose particularly
promising young researchres early in their careers to ILASA's international,
interdisciplinary setting and research approaches.

ca Research Agenda: The Institute conducts policy research centered on the theme of
global change. Projects address environmental issues (e.g., agricultural impacts of
possible climatic changes), technological issues (e.g., the diffusion of increasingly
efficient energy technologies}, and economic issues (e.g., transitions to market
economies in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe}. The research agenda
emphasizes conuections beiween regional policies and-global considerations.“ ~

History: In 1966 President Johnson proposed to the Soviets an institution to build a
bridge between East and West through joint research on common problems, After six
years of negotiation ASA was founded in 1972 with 12 original members. For two
decades it maintained a broad research portfolio bringing researchers from East and
West together for joiut studies of environmental, management, and policy issues. The
end of the Cold War in 1989 defined a new era for MASA. In 1990, members negotiated
a new Strategic Plan focused on environmental, technological, and economic issues of
global change. In 1994, ministers from NMO-country governments, meeting for the
first time since IASA's founding, reviewed, endorsed, and pledged their support for the
Institute's new direction.

Finance and Governance: ITASA's annual budget is about $13 million. 80% of the
budget comes from core contributions by NMO's. Contracts and grants from
government ministries, private foundations, and industry make up the balance. NMO's
contribute according to a three-tier schedule, with Americans and Russians
contributing the most. Payments are in Austrian schillings. The CEO of the Institute is
the Director, currently Gordon J. MacDonald of the United States. There is a

Infa 08/02/97 11:0736



February 18, 1999

Denham, D.H., Dirkes, R-L., Hauf, R'W., Poston, TM, Thiede, ME., Woodruff, R.K., “Phase
1 Summaries of Radionuclide Concentration Data for Vegetation, River Water, Drinking Water,
and Fish”, PNWD — 2145 HEDR, Battelle — Pacific Northwest Laboratories, June 1993.

Hanf, RW., Duncan, JP., Thiede, ME, “Iodine — 131 in Vegetation Collected Near the
Hanford Site: Concentration and Count Data for 1948-1951”, PNWD-2177 HEDR, Battelle —
’ Pacific Northwest Laboratories, September 1993.

Ms. Karen L. Hoewing, General Counsel, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, provided a
copy of the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (EDR) project DESCARTES, output
file of the 1-131 vegetation concentration of Sagebrush for all nodes for ail months of the years
1949 through 1951. This copy was delivered via Federal Express February 11, 1999.

5.2 Data Pre-processing

Tape provided by Battelle was received January 6, 1999. It was supposed to contain vegetation
radiation estimates from HEDR codes. This media was an 8mm DAT tape, which contained
hundreds of files without description. After a complete analysis of its content, it was possible to
verify that the requested data was not present.

On February 11, 1999 the required data was received on a CD-ROM. The large file on that CD
was separated into smaller files, each containing a complete year of median values from the 100
stochastic HEDR realization runs.

The final documents, received February 18, 1999, contained vegetation measurement values.

These documents, namely Denham (1993) and Hanf (1993) were in paper form and had to be

digitized. The office of Tom Foulds and Associated Counsel took note of Cell members in both
- documents referred to above. os se .

Model Data was then combined with digitized measurement data, in Excel 97 spreadsheets. The
data was organized by row, and each row ordered by date and cell number.

5.3 Data Processing

During this review problems were encountered. Some of the problems were related to the
measured values, some with the validation of the HEDR codes. These are described above in the
section titled “4.0 RATCHET Validation Reports”.

5.3.1 Initial Tests

Tests were conducted to evaluate Napier’s (1998) statement that increasing the foliage radiation
Measurement results by a factor of 3 “would only impact the comparison slightly”. The results
of the tests indicate that the validation “1.5 Data Quality Objectives” in Napier (1994) is false:

“The model validation activities address the DQOs of most of the technical tasks on the HEDR
Project. Comparisons of predicted versus monitored historical data must be made, and the

13



218 ‘Health Physics

Telease of 2.46 + 0.71 PBq of TM between 1950.and
1972. The stack monitoring zesults show a release of 34
to the atmosphere between 1950 and 1972 of 1.55 + 0.23
PBq (41,900 + 6,300 Ci). The concurrent atmospheric
monitoring results imply an “{ release of 1.75 + 0.11

PBq (47,200 + 2,900 Ci) over the same-period, nat this ‘

result is inflated by inclusion of global fallout. For the
key period of 1950 thorugh £957 (the period of highest
releases after those of the mid-1940's, and a period
included in ongoing epidemiological studies), the sto-
chastic stack monitoring results indicate an" release of
146 + 0.23 PBg (39,400 + 6,300 Ci), supported by
atmospheric monitoring results of 1.56 + 0.11 PBq
(42,100 + 2,900 Ci), compared to the original estimate
of 2.37 + 0.69 PBq (66,800 + 19,200 Ci).

‘The detailed evaluation of the releases from the
various separations facilities indicates that several of the
simplifying assumptions made by Heeb (1994) were
inappropriate. When these assumptions are replaced with
the actual measured releases, the estimate of the overall
magnitude of the releases is decreased in the petiod 1951
through 1954, and increased in the period 1961 through
1971. The early decrease is by a factor from 3 to 10, and
the later increase is by a factor of from 3 to 1,000.
However, because the releases in the earlier period are
much larger than the releases in the later period, the
overall result is that the source term decreases from
Heeb’s estimate. The primary reason for the decrease is
that the release fraction applied by Heeb (1994) to B and
T Plants was derived from data taken at the REDOX
facility in 1959 through 1960, and the operation of the

» cleanup systems at REDOX daring that period wa not as ~

good as earlier operations had achieved. The later in-
creases result because the primary causes of the release,
malfunctions and process upsets, were not included in the
Heeb model.

Acknowledgments—Special thanks art dut to Joseph K. Stidat for provid-
ing the ociginal copies of his Hanford monthly reposts for the years 1950
Tarough 1952, which detailed the resumption of the stack monitoring
systems and individual sampling results. Lyon Anspaugh provided the
impetus 10 re-evaluate the releases using the stack dats. Teri Traub and
Janice Parthree guided the author to the appropeiate hundreds of boxes of
documents in the DOE Reading Room, Richland, Washington.

Anderson JD. Emitted and decayed values of radionuclides in
gaseous wastes discharged to the atmosphere from the
separations facilities through calendar year 1972. Richland,
WA: Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company; ARH-3026;
1974.

Aoyama M, Hirose K, Suzuki Y, Inoué H, Sugimura Y. High
level radioactive nuclides in Japan in May. Natre
321:819-820; 1986.

Angnst 2002, Volame 83, Number 2

ARHCO. Radioactivity in gaseous waste discharged from the
sepatations facilities during 1968. Richland, WA: Attantic
Richfield Hanford Company; ARH-1187; 1969.

separations facilities dutmg 1970. Richland, WA: Atlantic
Richfield Hanford Company; ARH-2045 Pt. 1; 1971.

ARHCO. Radioactivity in gaseous waste di from the
separations facilities during 1971. Richland, WA: Atlantic
Richfield Hanford Company; ARH-2352 Pt, 1; 1972. .

Blasewitz AG, Judson BF. Variation in silver reactor perfor-
mauce. Richland, WA: General Electric Company; HW-
24826; 1951. .

Bondietti BA, Brantley JN. Characteristics of Chernobyl radio-
activity in Tennessee. Nature 322:313-314; 1986.

Cambray RS, Cawse PA, Garland JA, Gibson JAB, Johnson P,
Lewis GNI, Newton D, Salmon L, Wade BO. Observations
on radioactivity from the Chemobyl accident. Nuclear
Energy 26:77-101; 1987.

Clatk BE. A review of the PUREX Plant capacity. Richland,
WA: General Electric Hanford Atomic Products Operation;
HW-30507:3; 1954.

Corley JP. Environmental surveillance at Hanford for CY-
1970. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest Laboratory; ’
BNWL-1669; 1971,

Decisioncering. Crystal Ball Version 4.0 User Manual. Denver,
CO; Decisioneering Inc.; 1995. -

Donelson RN, Keene AR. Separations Section Radiation Mon-
itoring Monthly Report April 1954. Richland, WA: General
Electric Company; HW-31742; 1954.

DuPont. Operation, B . Richland, WA: Hanford Atomic
Products Operation; 93-94; 1946.

Faris WT, Napier BA, Jkenberry TA, Simpson JC, Shipler
DB. Atmospheric pathway dosimetry report, 1944-1992,
Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, Rich-
land, WA: Battelle Pacific Notthwest Laboratories; PNWD-.
728 HEDR; 1994.5

Fans WT, Napier BA, Ikenberry TA, Shipler DB. Radiation
doses from Harford Site releases. Health Phys 71:588—-601;
1996.

FHCRC. Hanford Thyroid Disease Draft Final Report. Scattle,
WA: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; 1999.

GE, Radioactive contamination in the Columbia River and in
the air and radiation levels measured in the air at HW. &
vicinity for ‘45,46,‘47,‘48, Richland, WA: Genesal Electric
Company; HW-9871; 1948.

GE. Radioactive contamination in the environs of the Hanford
Works for the period January, Febreary, March, 1950.
Richland, WA: General Electric Company; HW-18446;
1950a. .

GE. Radioactive contamination in the environs of the Hanford
Works for the period April, May, June, 1950, Richland,
WA: General Electric Company; HW-19454; 1950b.

GE. Radioactive contaminatios in the environs of the Hanford
Works for the period July, August, September, 1950.
Richland, WA: General Electric Company; HW-20700;

* 1950c,

GE. Radioactive contamination iv the environs of the Hanford
‘Works for the period October, November, December, 1950.
Richland, WA: General Flecttic Company; HW-21566;
19504. ° : peeeee :

GE. Radioactive contamination in the environs of the Hanford
Works for the period January, February, March, 1951,



PNWD-2226 HEDR
LC-000
DRAFT

A Guide to Environmental Monitoring Data,
1945-1972

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

F M. E. Thiede

. D. J. Bates
EB. L. Mart
R. W. Hanf

March 1994

Prepared for review and approval by 2
the Technical Steering Panel and .
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention :
under Contract 200-92-0503(CDC)/18620BNW) f

Battelle, ;
Pacific Northwest Laboratories j
Richland, Washington 99352 H



Exhibit 10



PNWD-2234 HEDR

UC-000
| Environmental Radiological Monitoring
| _ | of Air, Rain, and Snow on and near
| fe the Hanford Site, 1945 - 1957.
| &.W. Hanf
i _ ME. Thiede ’
]
March 1994
i f Prepared for the Technical Steering Pane!
i ‘ and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 3.
| wr under Contract 200-92-0503(CDC)/18620(BNW) 3
Ain € x
y :
<sBatielle 3
Pacific Northwest Laboratories 3



"atmospheric neleases from the Hanford site @ B.A. Nossa 215

same results annualized are presented in Fig. 3. From
Fig. 3, it is apparent that Heeb's modeled release frac.
tions tended to overestimate the releases in the period

from 1952 throngh 1954, For this period, Heeb was using .

a release fraction for the REDOX facility that was based
on Warren's (1961) reports of REDOX copezations. in
1959-1960. For this period, it was acknowledged that

the REDOX silver reactors “... were not up to design

specifications nor to previously demonstrated values”
(Warren 1961). From the stack Tonitoring data, it is
apparent that use of the release fractions based on the
degraded performance was Overly conservative, and the
releases were actually lower than Heeb's estimates.
However, it is aiso apparent from Fig. 3 that Heeb's
estimates for the 1960's were underestimates. The re-
leases in the 1960's were Primarily from the PUREX
plant. The silver reactors worked so well in the PUREX
Plant that most of the releases resulted from malfunctions
and process upsets; this type of release is not included in
the Heeb model. Formnately, the releases in the 1960's
were very low in comparison to the earlier years, and
even a relatively large fractional increase in the source
term is small fn the absolute sense.

VERIFICATION WITH ATMOSPHERIC
MONITORING DATA

A method of checking the reasonableness of the
total release estimates is to compare environmental
concentrations predicted using them with the actual
measurements made in the environment in 1950's and
1960's. From 1948 through 1957 (GE 1948 through GE

10000 ,
~@-1IEDR Estimate |
ie from Stack Monitoring Data

1000
o
= 400
F
2. 10
g

q4
04 LH,

1949 1954 1959 1964 «4969

Year.
¥Fig-3. Compatison of releases of "' from Hanford as calculated
by Heeb {and conected by Napier 1999) and estimated from stack
monitoring data,

19574), the Hanford Site quarterly environmental moni-
toring summaries report monthly average concentrations
of "tin air at several locations throughout the Hanford
vicinity. After.1958, the weekly or monthly values were
ported in the Hanford Site annual monitoring reports. A
Common monitoring -lodation is downtown Richland,
Washington—the city immediately adjacent to the sonth-
‘ast comer of the Site. A monitoring station was set up
near the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) headgnar-
ters. The location of the station is shown on Fig. 1.
Integrated samples were taken weekly ‘at this location
throughout the period of Sepatations processing,

The sampling device consisted of an air pump
connected to a flow meter, a filter, and a container of
caustic solution, Generally, the beta’ radioactivity cap-
tured in the caustic scrubber solution was Teported as "ty,
This basic system remained essentially unchanged until
the 1970’s (GE 1950a; Corley 1971).

Jost as, there are uncertainties in the amount of YY
emitted from the stacks, there is uncertainty in the
amount of ""{ reported to be in the atmosphere. Jodine
exists in three general forms in the atmosphere: as
organic (slightly reactive) Bases, as inorganic (reactive)
gases, and attached to aerosol particles. The monitoring
system only collected the gaseous fraction of the iodine
from the air in the scrubber solution. The fractions of
Organic, elemental, and Particulate iodine in the air
samples are likely to be different than those emitted from
the stacks. In measurements made at Hanford, Ludwick
(1964) found that in the time it took pumarily elemental
iodine emitted from the stacks to‘tiavel 3;200 m, about
two-thirds of the iodine had changed form. Approxi-
mately one-third was in organic species, and another
third was associated with particulate material. The parti-
Goning of iodine in Ludwick’s experiments is consistent
with the results of other measurements of iodine at the
Hanford Site (Ludwick 1967; Perkins 1963, 1964), with
the partitioning of iodine in the plume following the
Chernobyl reactor accident (Aoyama et al. 1986; Bondi-
etti and Brantley 1986; Cambray et al. 1987; Mueck
1988), and with the Partitioning of natural iodine in the
atmosphere {Voilleque 1979). On the basis of these
references, a uniform distribution of the Teactive gas
iodine fraction between 0.4 and 0.6 is assumed here.

- Other sampling uncertainties also exist. The flow
rate of the sampler may have varied; this is assumed to
parallel the stack sampler with a variability of 20% of the
nominal flow rate, Therefore, an Uacertainty factor with
a triangular distribution of minimum 0.8, most likely
value of 1.0, maximum 1.2 has been assigned. Using
Schwendiman's (1954) xeport that “Analytical methods
and counting corrections for " can be expected to give



1. “The lower limit of detection was relatively high. One count per minute above background
on the detector was equivalent to 2.8E-08 Ci/kg of Iodine-131 (Mark et al. 1993).”

2. “The bias introduced by the contaminated laboratory was evaluated to determine the
influence on the measurement rank score by the magnitude of the predicted result, In other
words, were the small predicted. values towards the southern portion of the domain treated
as under predictions by the ranking?”

3. “The values less than 10 Cifkg (InCifkg), which are predicted for the region southwest of the
Hanford Site, where the effects of the laboratory contamination ore most evident.
Discounting this portion of the data for which measurements reported were likely in error,

It is evident that the Geiger counter was calibrated within the Hanford site. Therefore, measured.
values were low by any standard, and were of an amount difficult to assess,

4.7 Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Correction

In 1957 the vegetation radiation measurement technique was changed from wet chemistry to
gamma ray spectrometry. (PNWD-2235). According to Duncan (1994):

“Early use of gamma ray spectroscopy techniques for vegetation analysis indicated that the wet
chemistry techniques being used for I-13] determinations yielded results that were low bya
factor of three. As a result, all positive I-131 vegetation results for the first and second quarters
of 1957 were multiplied by three, giving increased quarterly averages when compare to previous
results (HW-51009, HW-52803). Late comparisons of 1-131 measurements obtained from
gamma spectroscopy method averaged a factor of 1.6 tines those obtained with the wet chemistry
technique (HW-54841).”

10



4.4 Local Meteorology

Stewart (1996) points out that the wind field is a potentially significant source of error in the
RATCHET model. Dr. Stewart also describes that directional bias is commonly as large as 20-
45. As an example, an error of 20 degrees, 100 km downwind, can shift the plume by
approximately 34km. a :

CALPUFF, a long-range transport model from the U.S. EPA, can use an array of meteorological

stations to better represent the advection and dispersion process, caused by wind fields, surface
toughness, and thermal induced turbulence.

4.5 Wet-to-dry Weight Conversions
The HEDR Validation, as published in Napier (1994), failed to convert wet weight to dry
weight. In Napier (1997), it is stated that:

1. “When adjustment is made for the dry-to-wet correction that was omitted, the HEDR results
for this region for 1946 seem to be uniformly low by about a factor of about 3”.

2. “In the fail and winter months, sagebrush is relatively dry and the impact will be small.”

3. “Uf the measurements were overestimated by a factor of three, the observations would again
line up on the predictions.”

In Napier (1998), the author states that:

1. “The errors discovered in the. published HEDR validation involve the omission of the wet-to-
dry conversion factor for sagebrush in the modeling.”

2. “Sage brush is acclimated for the annual Precipitation pattern, in which nearly half of the
annual rainfall occurs in the winter months.”

4.6 Equipment Calibration

Calibration of the Geiger counter equipment is very important in this analysis. First one needs to
know the minimum detection level. After that, one should remove all modeling values that are
equal or lower than the detection level.

In Appendix B, Table B-1, in Napier (1994), all over predictions (score 1) happen when the
median observation is 0.0 uGilkg.

According to Napier (1994):



|
|
|
j

Path. 7] 6
“Hn | = EXHIBIT

ren

A RE-EVALUATION OF THE "I ATMOSPHERIC RELEASES ©
FROM THE HANFORD SITE

Abstract—The atmospheric release of I from the Hanford site for
the 1950's and 1960's, focused on the period of releases after the year
1950, has been re-evaluated using processing plat stack monitoring
data to address a series of questions and concerns that have arisen
related to the source (erm Historical stack monitoring data have
been used fo re-assess the releases by creating either a release factor
to use with the calculated plant throughput or using the stack
monitoring results as the basic estimate, and the results have been
Verified using historical atmospheric monitoring data from a location
Several Idlameters distant. Uncertainties in all of;the historical data
have been addressed in the reassessment, Compared to the original
estimate between 1950 and 1971 of 246 + 0.71 PBq, the stack
monitoring resulis show a release of ""{ to the atmosphere of 155
0.23 PBq. The concurrent atmospheric monitoring results imply a
release of 1.75 + 0.11 PBq over the same period, but this resull is
inflated by inclusion of global fallout, The effective dase
estimated to 2 full-time, nearby adult resident from TMY using the
Heeb source term from 1950 through 1972 is 0.73 mSv; using the
source term based on slack monitoring data in the Hanford Envi-
ronmental Dose Reconstruction project models, ii is 051 mSv.
Health Phys. 83(2):204-226; 2002 :

Key words: radioactivity, airborne; Monte Carla; dase assess-

ment; i

INTRODUCTION

‘Tie Hanrorp Site was built in southeastem Washington
State during World War II to provide plutonium for the
United States nuclear weapons program. Inrddiated uranium
produced in the production reactors at Hanford was pro-
cessed in chemical separations plants to obtain ‘weapons-
grade plutonium. Four chemical separations plants (T, B,
REDOX, and PURIEX) operated at various times with
differing processes on the Hanford Site from 1944 through

1972, The locations of these facilities are shown in Fig. Lin.

each of the chemical separations plants, ‘the aluminum
cladding covering the irradiated uranium Slugs was dis-
solved in sodium hydroxide solution, and: then the bare
uraninm metal was «dissolved in concentrated nitric acid

“Pacific Northwest tlational Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352.
For correspondence ot reprints contact B. A. Napier at the above
address, or email at Bruce Napier@pnt gov. :
(anuscript received 9 July 200); revised manuscript received 27
December 2001, accepted 30 Aprit 2002)
0017-907802/0
Copyright © 2002 Health Physics Society

ana

B. A. Napier*

solution. A tumber of radionuclides, inclading "'L, were
released to the atmosphere during these dissolution pro-
cesses,

‘The first comprehensive evaluation of the releases of
YT to the atmosphere from these operations was published
by Heeb (Heeb 1994; Heeb et al 1996). Heeb’s Tesnits
formed the basis for individual radiation dose calculations
performed by the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruc-
tion Project (HEDR) (Panis et al. 1994, 1996) and the
dosimetry for the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS)
(FHCRC 1999). tn a review of the thyroid study, the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2000) summarized a
Series of questions and concems, primarily attributed to
Hoffman et al. (1999), which have arisen related to the
Source term developed by Heeb (1994). These concerns are
focused on the period of releases afier the year 1949. This
Paper provides an independent approach to estimating the
atmospheric releases of "I from Hanford based on histor-
ical stack measurements, with a Separate verification based
on atmospheric monitoring data from a location several
kiometers-distant. This differs from the approach of Heeb
(1994), which was based on estimation of Processing plant
throughput and release factors.

This paper re-evaluates the source term using historical
stack and atmospheric monitoring data, The historical stack
data are used either to generate a monthly release factor or
as the direct basis of the estimate. The approach taken in this
Paper inchides explicit consideration of the various sources
of uncertainty in the available data. Probability distributions
are provided for all uncertain parameters used in the
calculations. Estimates of the range of possible releases are

_ made using stochastic (Monte Carlo) calculations appropri-

ate for the conditions corresponding to each mouth of
Operation between 1950 and 1971. All stochastic computa-
tions were made using Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA)
spreadsheets equipped with the Crystal Ball add-in @eci-
sioneering 1995).

‘The EDR source term

Early in the evolution of the HEDR Project, it was
determined that the radionuclide releases to the atmo-
sphere in the early years of the Hanford Site had not been



5.0 Data Processing and Analysis of Results

5.1 Data availability

The following documents were made available to me by Tom Foulds and Associated Counsel:

From June t7, 1997 to March 26, 1998

Duncan, J., P., “Overview of Vegetation Monitoring Data, 1952-1983”, PNWD-2235, Battelle -
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1994.

Hanna, S., R., “Uncertainties in Air Quality Simulation Model Predictions”, Boundary Layer
Meteorology, 62, 3-20, 1993.

Jarvis, R. E., “Evaluation of Radiochemical Aspects of HEDR”, Report to Tom H. Foulds and
Associated Counsel, 1995. :

Mart, E. L, D. H. Denham and M. E. Thiede. 1993. “Conversion and Correction Factors for
Historical Measurements of Jodine-131 in the Hanford-Area Vegetation, 1945-1947", PNWD-
2133 HEDR, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Miley, T.B., Eslinger, P.W., Nichols, W.E., Lessor K.S., Ouderkirk, S.J. “User Instructions for
the DESCATES Environmental Accumulation Code”, PNWD-2251 HEDR, Battelle ~ Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, May 1994,

Napier, B., Ikenberry, T., “Comparison of Calculated Vegetation Concentrations with
Mesurements in 1946”, Presentation slides, CDC Technical Workshop, Session I, August 14,
1997.

Napier, B., Letter to Dr. Charles Miller, January 12, 1998.

Napier, B., Letter to Mr. Joe Wayman, April, 1997.

Napier, B., Simpson, J., Eslinger, P., Ramsdell, J., Thiede, M., Walters, W., “Validation of the
HEDR Models — Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project”, Battelle - Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, 1994.

Stewart, D., “Air Dispersion Modeling Issues Related to the Hanford Radiation Litigation”,
prepared for Tom Foulds and Associated Counsel for the Hanford Radiation Litigation, March,
1996,

January 6, 1999

A tape that was supposed to contain data for Sagebrush Concentration arrived with CIDER data.

12



210 Health Physics

Angust 2002, Volume 83, Namber 2

‘Mean of Stack
‘original on stack cuties
estimate monitoring
Month/Year . (TBgimonti) — (TBy/month) __vatiision

6NIGT 1x10 Sx ig? 016
Ter 7x 107% 2x 107 0.16
Basi + 9x10 9x 107 0.16
9167 3x10 8x 107 016
10/6? 2x 1075 6x 107? 0.16
/u67 3x 107 3x10? 0.16
sonst 1x tot 5x 107% O16
1/68 3x10? 3x107 016
2ni68 2x 10% 1x 10% O16
68 1x wt 3x0? als
4168 Axi at YI
SRUGB 8x 105 2x 107 016
GAGS 5x 108 1% 107 Olé
TUES 4x 107 2x 107 O16
BAGS 2% 10% 6x 107 0.16
S168 3x 105 8x 10% 0.16
10/68 2x 10 3x 107 2.16
1/68 1x10 1x 107 O16
121468 8x 107 4X 107 0.16

6/1469 1x 1075 5x 107 016
TGS 2x10 1x 107 0.16
8/69 1x 10% 1x 10° 0.36
S169 2x 10° 7x 10"* 016
10/1469 6x 10 2x 107 0.16
iV69 7% 107% 5x 107 0.16
121169 2x io? 1x 10? 0.16
170 5X 107? 2x10" 0.16
2 4x 10° 1x10? 0.16
anno 6x 107% 6x 107 0.16
AN 3x 10% 8x 10% 0.16
S70 9x? 3x 107 0.16
61720 Q 5x10? 0.36
TAN Q 1x10" 0.
BAO 0 2x10 0.16
9170 0 8x10" 0.16
107770 a 1x 10% 0.16
170 0 1x10% 0.16
12/170 0 8x10? 0.16
wiai 0 sx10~ 0.16
2m 0 6x 104 O16
am 1x 107! 6x10" 0.16
ant 8x 107" 8x 10 0.16
Sn” 3x 10° 7x 10s 0.16
on 3x 10% 1x 107 016
ma 9x 102 8x0 0.16
BLL 7x 107? 1x 10% 0.16
SN 9x 10-7 6x 10% 0.16
Souler ) 8x10" 0.16
Lat 0 1x10? 0.16
wat 0 1x 107 0.16

They were intended as a system for occasional spot
checks, rather than routine monitoring, and were only
infrequently used, The original system consisted of a
stack gas sampling line originating at the 15-m (50-foot) *
elevation of the stacks. The sample was bubbled through
a sodium carbonate solution and the radioactivity of the

nm abnwhae tn the

middie of a coil of tubing containing the sodium carbon-
ate solution, The chamber current (amperes) was then
converted to quantity of iodine. Knowledge of the stack-
gas flow and sample line flow allowed inference of the
amount of iodine going up the stack (Heeb 1994), In
January and February 1945, the initial stack monitoring
anminment in the 207-T Ruilding wae fannd ta he



3.0 Overview of RATCHET

The U.S. DOE directed Battelle Memorial Institute to conduct the Hanford Environmental
Reconstruction (HEDR) project. The purpose of the HEDR project is to estimate the radiation
dose that individuals were exposed to as a result of emissions since 1944 from the Hanford site.

The HEDR project produced a series of codes to estimate the generation of radionuclides to
individual exposure. The computer code of interest in this report is the atmospheric transport
model (RATCHET).

RATCHET is a Lagrangian-trajectory Gaussian puff model that computes radionuclide air
concentrations and deposition rates. It is capable of predicting long-range (i.e, downwind
distances bigger then 100 km) pollutant transport. However, a few limitations preclude
RATCHET from being used for such task. Some of these limitations include:

Q_ It presently does not account for vertical wind shear.
a Itcannot compute partial puff penetration above the mixing height.
a Itisa flat terrain model.

Figure 3.1 presents the terrain features of Hanford site’s surrounding area. Figure 3.2 is a plan
view of the modeled domain. It is clear that complex terrain features are present and should be
considered. The inability to handle complex terrain features, including wind distribution and
transport of pollutants over and around hills, plume impacting, and channeling effects in valleys,
renders the reviewed version of RATCHET inappropriate to model the site. Therefore, I cannot
recommend this model, as it stands in the reports, to reconstruct the source-term object of this
litigation.



File
February 10, 1988

Page 13
TABLE 1. Potential Measurement Errors (cont)
Error w_biscussion

COUNTING (cont) SAMPLE PREPARATION:
Inconsistency in sample preparation would lead to
some uncertainty in the final value. This is
probably a minor source of uncertainty. The
procedure for sample preparation is given by Healy
et al. (1951) in HW-20136, pg. 4.15-1.

REFERENCES

Healy, J. W. 1948, H. I. Environs Report for the Month of June, 1948.
HW~10427, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Healy, J. W., L. C. Schendiman and.R. C. Thorburn. 1950. Counter
Calibrations in the H. I. Methods Group. HW-18258, General Electric
Company, Richland, Washington.

Healy, J. W., R. C. Thorburn and 2. E. Carey. -1951. H. J. Contro}
Laboratory Routine Chemical Procedures. HW-20136, General Electric

Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J. 1951. Radioactive Contamination in the Environs of the Hanford

Works for the Period July, August, September 2951. HW-23133, General
Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

~ Pas, H. J., and W. Singievich. 1950a. Radioactive Contamination in the

Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period April, May, June, 1949.
HW~17434, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J., and W. Singlevich. 1950b. Radioactive Contamination in the
Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period January, February, March 1950.

HW-18446, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Singtevich, H. 1949. H. I. Environs Report for the Month of February, 1949.
HW-12629, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington



December 49

120 T T T 71.0
100+ :
40.8
2
80+ 3
4 g
3 0.6 a
3 60b 3
404 8
40F g
20h 70-2
| , 0 t it 0.0
| -1000 = -500 0 500 1000

| DIFFER4S

Figure 5.2 -— Large range, smail stratification (observed*4.8 — modeled)

i
|
|
i
'

December 49

7 . 35; : : :

30F

25

20-

Count

15-

deg Jad uoysodoig

10-

ilieal doa

it) .f
-200 -100 0 100 200
DIFFER

i
|

Figure 5.3 ~ Smalter range, smaller stratification (observed — modeled}

15



general objective is that the overall bias (ratio of prediction to measurement) of the results be

less than a factor of 3. The activities described in this report show that this objective is met”

A‘ sample test indicated that stratifying the results into six segments was not appropriate. Since
the difference between the measured and modeled results spans over orders of magnitude, a
range limit must be imposed. Figure 5.1 is a histogram of the difference of “measured —
tnodeled” values, by. day and cell for the Green ran experiment: In-figure 5.2 the measured~
results were roultiplied by a factor of 4.8, It is evident that both histograms change only slightly.

To remedy this inappropriate representation of data, the histograms from Figure 5.1 and Figure
5.2 were recreated. From Figure 5.3 and 5.4 one can now identify a significant change in the
distribution of differences. Note that a shift to the right of the plot indicates an undeniable bias of
underprediction from the HEDR codes.

December 49
120 T T T
70.9
100/- 40.8
07 2
sob 1" 3
4o6 8
c =
2 sok 405 §
° jos 8
40r 403 2
20k 40.2
i 40.1
9 t . 0.0
-1000 — -600 0 500 1000
DIFFER

Figure 5.1 — Large range, small stratification (observed — modeled)

14



oy see

Moscow Order Of The Red Flag Institute OF Physics and Technology

141700 Dolgoprudniy, Moscow region

Phone 408-42-54

Excerpt from the curriculum of Klementiev Alexander Alexandrovich,

graduated from M.L.Ph.T. in 1966

Course title

Calculus

Analytical geometry

Differential equations
Computational mathematics
Functions of a complex variable
Equations of mathematical physics
Theoretical mechanics

General physics

Theoretical physics

General chemistry

Foreign language

Basics of draughting

Basics of computer programming
Introduction to ecology

Life safety

_ Natural science course

General engineering

Electrical circuits

Electronic devices

Telecommunications theory and devices
Pulse and digital devices

Lab for telecommunications devices” ’
Signal processing

Basics of automatic contro! theory

Contro! theory in social-economic systems
Theory of stochastic systems

Optimal contro! in dynamic systems
Computers and principles of computer programming
Stochastic processes in contrat systems
Simulation in control systems
Occupational safety

Master's thesis work

Dean (signature)

Hours
Total

380
132
132
99
85
149
132
760
149
102
520
34
66
32
36
58
34
432
134
326
66
224



File
February 10, 1988
Page 9

Paas, H. J. 1952b. Radioactive Contamination in the Environs of the Hanford
Works for th ‘iod January, February, March, 1952. Hi-25866, General

Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J. 1952c. Radioactive Contamination in the Environs of the Hanford
Works for the Period Apri, May, dune, 1952. WW-26493, General Electric

Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J. 1953. Radioactive Contamination in the Hanford Environs for the
Period January, February, March, 1953. Hi-. 09, General Electric Company,

Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J. 1954a. Radioactive Contamination in the Hanford Environs for
er, December.

the Period October, Nov 1953. HW-30744, General Electric
Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J. 1954b. Radioactive Contamination in the Hanford Environs for

the Period January, February, March, 1954. HW-31818, General Electric
Company, Richland, Washington.

. Paas, H. J., and WH. Singlevich. 1950a. Radioactive Contamination in the

fvirons of the Hanford Works for the Period October, November, December
1949. “HW-17003, Del., General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J., and W. Singlevich. 1950b. Radioactive Contamination in the

01
Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period April, May, June, 1049.
HW-17434, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J., and W. Singlevich. 1950c. Radioactive Contamination in the | .
“Environs of the Hanford Works: for the’ Period January, February, March 1950.
HW-18446, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, J. J., and W. Singlevich. 1950d. Radioactive Contamination in the
Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period July, August, September 1949.
HW-18615, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J., and W. Singlevich. 1950e. Radioactive Contamination in the

Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period April, May, June, 1950.

HH-19545, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J., and W. Singlevich. 1951a. Radioactive Contamination in the
Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period duly, August, September, 1950.
HW-20700, General Electric Company, Rich and, Washington.

Paas, H. J., and W. Singlevich. 1951b. Radioactive Contamination in the

Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period January, February, March 1951.
HW-21214, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

4014222



‘The Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstenction
Project used Heb's sonrce term to prepare radiation deve

‘1000

100

:
Reloase, Taq/vear

|
:
cs
B

6

the Heeb source term (as comected by Napier 1999) from !

: 4 N 1950 through 1972 is 0.73 mSy; using the source term a
PELOPPOE PER 8 GPS based ou stack monitoring data in the HEDR models ire
Year 0.51 mSv. There are minor temporal differences, for

Fig. 5. Comparison of releases of] from Hanford estimated from Heeb's source tem for the Period 1950 through 1953 the
stack moultoring data with those back-caiculated from atmo- dose is 0.65 mSv and for the stack monitoring source :
Bale-wise, with stack monioriag daa fst aim aphoe ‘monitoring fem itis 0.45; the dose for the period 1954 through 1957 \
data second. is 0.05 mSv Using the original source term and 0.03 mSy
. ‘ using the stack Tmaonitoring source term; the dose for the

period 1957 through 1972 is 0.02 mSv using the original

1962. However, these Were years of high global fallout Source tenn and 0.03 mSy using the stack monitoring
from atmospheric weapons testing. The records from Source term. These dose differences follow the source
each of these periods indicates that the atmospheric term differences, with minor modifications resulting
Monitoring stations detected simultaneous increases in from crop growing season considerations, :

all locations throughout the monitoring area, and specif- The researchers of the Hanford Thyroid Disease i
ically attribute the higher readings to fallout (GE 1953b, Study (TDS) have been provided with the Source term i
©; 1956c; 1957¢, a; 19591; 1963m). dezived from the stack monitoring data and the HEDR :

Correspondence is very Strong, supporting the stack _ what impact the revisions may have on the epidemiolog-
monitoring data, In Particular, the atmospheric monitor- ical results,
ing data indicate that for the petiod 1951 through 1954,

the stack Monitoring data provide a better estimate of the
Teleases than the corrected estimates of Heeb (Wapier CONCLUSION
1999). This is the Period noted above in which Heeb was This paper provides an independent approach to
extrapolating the REDOX release fraction back to the T estimating the atmospheric releases of 3% from Hanford ;
and B Plants, which was Not appropriate. based on historical stack Measbrements, with a separate |
verification based onatmosphetic monitoring data from a H
DISCUSSION location several kilometers distant. The atraospheric :

Telease of "I from the Hanford site for the 1950's and

. ‘The comments made about the HEDR source term 1960's has been re-evaluated using Processing plant

by the National Academy of Sciences are essentially . stack monitoring data. The results are broadly compatible
comrect. Analysis of the historical stack monitoring data with Brevious estimates (Heeb 1994; Anderson 1974) in *
and atmospheric monitoring data indicate that the HEDR terms of overall magnitude and time tends but are based y
estimates were too high in the early 1950's and too low - On a detailed review of all available historical data on i fs
-in the 1960's. However, the largest emissions from the emissions and measurement technology. The results have :
Hanford Site occuned in the petiod of 1945 througti been compared with additional historical data derived
1947, a total of 25.3 PBq (683,000 Ci). The difference in fom regional ‘atmospheric nonitoring Programs, The
the total "'f emissions from all Processing operations _ original -estimates Ceeb 1994; Napier 1999) were a



i ” 03-17-06 Pre:o2 jy

March 15, 2006

| Office of Compensation Analysis and Support

| National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
! SEC Petition

i 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

Supplements to: SEC 00050,
. Response to NIOSH letter of March 2", 2006 Special Exposure

Cohort

Petitioner: "Authorized Representative for Claimants
on Record with Original Petition

See Point F.2 below explaining why NIOSH and ORAUT-are incorrect -
in believing that CEDR has stored examples of records of personal
monitoring records of Hanford Dupont workers.

In addition to CEDR’s Data File Set HFC78Ao1 of the Hanford
Cohort Study, 1989 and the Hanford Cohort Study, 1993, Data File Set
HFI89A01, where both studies specified that Pacific Northwest
Laboratories (PNL) was the source of their external and internal dosimetry
data, and knowing that PNL has gone on record as not being able to obtain
any DuPont Hanford worker dosimetry, there is yet another study in
CEDR’s database that makes the same point.

See PNL-8449, “Description of Process Used to Create 1992
Hanford Mortality Study Database,” E. S. Gilbert, 1992.

Page1of 3

a


i

- May not have -been

216 ‘Health Physics

curie values within £10-15 percent of the tme coucen-
-(ration in the scrubber solution,” a i lar Uncertainty
distribution with mini 0.8, most likely value of 1:0,
and maxinmum of 1.2 las been assigned to this tea Bar
monthly analyses, there is an additional i

added by Monitoring system reliability; the equipment
ioning 100% of the time. If

sampler was not it could have missed

calendar month. Usually, the amount included the mea-
Surements of the last few days of the preceding month
and excluded the last few days of the current month. This
lag was caused by the length of time Tequired to collect,
transport, process, and Teport the iodine in the caustic
solution from the Sampler. A month-to-month adjustment
of up to 6 d (measurements were reported weekly) could
Occur. To account for this, a multiplier with a uniform
distribution Tanging from 0.8 to 1.2 has been introduced.
See Table 2 for a Summary of these distributions,

Considering all the potential areas of Uncertainty, a
monthly correction multiplier may be estimated with a
mean/median of 2.0 and a 5-95 Percentile range of 1,05
to 4.0. This has been applied to all the reported air
measurements,

used for the HEDR dose calculations, and 5 years’ worth
of monthly calculations are available, An atmospheric
dispersion factor for each of the 12 months of the year
was derived using the HEDR Tesults, averaging the
annual variabilities and variations in Telease rate. The
resulting dispersion factors for releases from the Hanford
Separations areas transported to the central Richland
monitoring location are Presented in Table 4, Dividing
the adjusted, measured air Concentrations by these values
Provides an approximation of the release required to
Tesult in that air concentration. The central values of the

Were periods of high fallout from above-ground nuclear

Angast 2002, Volume 83, Nucaber 2

Table-4, Monthly average atmospheric dispersion factors (em)
for Hanford 200 area releases f&ansported to Richland. .

. Month Dispersion factor
January 13x 190%
February 13x 107
Mach bx .
* Apa” 66x 197
May 67x 10%
Jone 34x 107
July . 42x 10%
“Angust 58x 10°
September 15 x 10%
October 84x 10%
November 9.6 X 10
December 13 x 10
10000
“de from Stack Monitoring Data
+X trom Atmospheric Monitoring Data ;
7 LO
100

Release, TBq/year

OF
1949 1954 t959 1984 1
_ Year ” :
Fig. 4. Comparison of, releases of 8Y from Hanford estimated from
‘stack monitoring data and back-calculated from atmospheric mon-
data. .

at

to be detectable at the Richland air monitoring station,
For neither source is the Predicted environmental con-
centration dramatically different from the available his-
torical evidence,

It is apparent that the two sets of results are very
similar. Within the uncertaintics of the two set of
measurements, the results are essentially equivalent. This
is

Second. Including the Uncertainties, it appears that the
atmospheric Monitoring data would indicate larger re-
leases than reported in 1953, 1956, 1957, 1958. and



Exhibit 9



|
|

4.8 Recommendations for the Hantard Air Dispersion Model Validation

Major radiation accidents have always presented unique modeling challenges because of
-Lncertainties related to the source term. An-acceptable approach is to use a validated modél'to
calibrate modeled source emissions against field measured results. The resulting postulated
emissions are then used to describe the evolution of radiation accidents. Since spatial
distributions of concentrations are sensitive to source term changes over long-range, a well
tested model and validation criteria must be agreed upon by all parties.

The transport of radionuclides is dependent on the atmospheric motions. A minimum set of
physical representation that any model should have to. be considered for mesoscale atmospheric
transport is described below: ,

Q_ Spatial variations of
* Albedo
= Surface heat capacity
* Surface emissivity
* Surface evaporation rate
" Surface roughness
2 Cloud cover— variable over the mesoscale domain
Wind speed and direction
Q Topography — including terrain features such hills and valleys.

The measured results of radiation from the Hanford site, in the 1940s, consisted of collecting
leaves and measuring their radiation levels. The laboratories and the calibration equipment were
most times already contaminated and the background values were high. Soil contamination and
the various pathways to account for the radiation present on the leaves were not carried out.
Additionally, Pacific Northwest Labs employed correction factors in an attempt to improve the
quality of radiation measurements performed around the Hanford site in the 1940s. These
measurements were used in the validation studies of RATCHET. In a recent document Napier,
1997) it is clear that the correction factors were understated by a factor of 2.5 times!

Therefore, it is recommended that the serious Hanford site incidents in the 1940s not be used to
calibrate the air dispersion model. | recommend that the krypton-85 release measurements for
the model concentration estimates and the 1963 PUREX accident for the deposition rate, be used
for the final model validations.

1



‘ "atmospheric releases from the Hanford ste B. A. Narn 207
‘Table 1. Monthly atmospheric releases of "T from Hanford estimated using three methods,
Mean of ‘Mean of Suck Mean of |
"s estimate based §—amonitor estimate
original on stack cvefficieat Primary based on air Primary reference 5
estimate itoch of reference for momitari for aumospheric }
Month/Year (FBq/momiy —(TBaitmenik) var ion Sack estimate (YBghmonih) motos dns i
VASO 34 23 O45 | Soldat 1950ab 1s GE 19502 H
21/50 30 20 049 Soldst 1950a,b 03 GE 19502 i
301/50 44 30. . B43. Soldat 195035 +52 GE 19500 2
- 4nis0 3g- 2S 043 Saldat 19504 1s GE 1950»
SnU50 46 29 039 Soldat 19502, 06 GE 1950
6F50 37 23 044 Soldat 195ab 49 GE 1950 1
50 39 61 043 Soldat 1950a,5 28 GE 19500 i
8/1/50 378 375 043 Soldat 1950a,b 132 GE 1950c . a
nso 48.0 297 038 Soldat 1950ab 1S GE 19506 :
3041/50 316 20.7 0.47 Soldat 1950a,b W641 GE 1950d .
114150 19.9 126 as4 Soldst 1950a> 18 GE 19504 i
12/1/50 353 217 O45. Soldat 19503 37 GE 19504
UUST 28 37 043 Soldat 19542 10.2 GE 1951a
- 251 32 14 050 Soldat 1951c us GE 195ia
St 128 pay 048 Soldat 19516 54 GE 195ta
Musi 884 86.1 048 Soldat 195id 322 GE 195ib
SmUSt 3604 298.7 O41 Soldat 195t¢ B06 GE 1951b
sis} 29 360.7 042 Soldat 19S1¢ 325.7 GE 19Sib
Wi 1506 825 076 Soldat 951g 212.6 GE 1951b
anust 925 550 036 Soldat 19511 352.4 GE 1951
USI 3 168.) 053 Soldat 195th 1158 GE 195th
10/1/51 90.7 189 013 Soldat 195tj,m Oo GE 19514
Musi 917 30 0.13 Soldat 1951 ng GE 19514
Ins} 618 a7 044 Soldat 1951Lm 16 GE 19514
Wu52 109.5 31 06 Soldat 1952a af GE 1952a
22 76.0 19 Quid Soldat 1952 143 GE 19524
isa 929 36 0.15 GE 1952¢ 40 GE 1952a
452 847 10.6 0.13 Soldat 19524 29 GE 19525
SAIB2 37.0 38 0.13 Soldat 1952 59 GE 1952) r
osz 226 40 0.16 Soldat 19520 4 GE 1952b af
TNIS2 10 ut Ou Soldat 1952¢ 47 GE 1952¢
81/52 218 44 012 Soldat 19529 34 GE 1952¢
S152 124 36 013 Soldat 1952f 26 GE 19526
1o/4/s2 44 20 0.16 Soldzt 1952h 24 GE 19524
1s 86 Lo 0.13 Soldat 19524 20 GE 19524
12/52 120 28 oul Soldat 1952) 16 GE 19524
1153 - 81 49 015 GE 1953¢ 16 GE 39532
2153 21 is 0.14 GE 1953 14 GE 19538 H
3/53 51 12 Oy Keene 19532. 20 GE 19532
4/53 16.5 46 0.17 Keene 19536 29 GE. 19538 i 4
5IS3 132 Li O12 Keene-I9e = 3.0 GE 19535 :
G53 179 12 0.13 Keene 1953d Na GE 1953
U11S3 38.9 52 0.15 Keene 1953¢ 47 GE 19536
8/1/53 158 09 03 Keene 1953f 34 GE 1953¢
S53 n2 24 Os Keene 1953 283 GE 1953¢
1O/1S3 25.9 47 0.13 Keene 1953h 7 GE 19534
13 72 14 0.20 Keene 1953} 20 GE 19534
120053 13.6 ray 0.5 Keene 1953] 16 GE 19534
Wise 196 15 4 Keene 19548 16 GE 19344
254 45 03 0.13 Keeas 1954 14 GE 1954a
354 65 54 on Keene 1954 ng GE 1954a
ANSE 48 22 0.17 Donelson 1954 29 GE 1954p
SAISA M4 14 Ol Keene 1954d 30 GE 1954b :
ass 67 08 013 Keene 19548 57 GE 1954b :
M54 28 04 13 Reene 1954 47 GE 195dc :
a1/54 37 20 0.12 Keene 1954g 34 GB 1954e
Snis4 69 32 0.12 Keene 19545 26 GB 19546 ;
1018/54 99 is 615 Keene 19541 24 GE 1954d i
ds¢ 24 29 0.12 Keene 1954) 60 GE 19S4a .
12154 a9 19 O14 Keene 19552 16 GE 19546 ;
Ulss 25 43 01S Keene 19556 16 GE 19550 }
UUSS 95 48 013 Keene 1955¢ 14 GE 1955a i
anus 215. 244 014 Keene 19554 40 * GB 1955. ;
amiss 35 32 013 Keene 1955e as GE 1955b
. SSS 3.0 28 Gi3 Keene 1955 30 . GE 195Sb
6n055 49 18 015 Keene 1955 57, GE 19555 .
ISS 35 38 O17. Keene 19558. 47 GE 1955. J
8/55 20 14 on Keene 1955} 34 GE 19552
SNS 78 3.6 “O14” Keone 19555 26 GE 1955¢
f



‘lp: / for cree mipt.ru/MIPT /greting bia

P Welcome to MIPT Home Page

| [Foe ie ae

T have great pleasure in presenting Russia's most famous science and techno!
educational establishment -- the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology from which
I graduated in 1952 and of which I am now the rector.

The MIPT is the first Russian University of Physics and Technology and was founded in
1951 from the physics and technology department of Moscow State University by the
Nobel Prize winners P.L.Kapitza, N.N.Semenov, L.D.Landau et al. Our 1,000 staff
members are working diligently with 5,000 students and postgraduates to train the best

researchers in solid state physics, chemistry, biology, high energy physics, space -
I research, computer science etc.

|
|

The majority of the staff work here part-time, being well-known scientists of the following
research centers cooperating with MIPT:

© P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences |
® P.L.Kapiiza Institute for Physical Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences
® General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

| ® L.D.Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
: © Russian Research Center “Kurchatov Institute"

| ¢ N.N.Seinenov Institute of Chemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
i ® Institute of Physics and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

H . © High Energy Institute

i © General Aerohydrodynamic Institute

During the first 3 years students receive a-fundamentat univetsity training in physics
atid mathematics after which they continue their education for another 3 years
specialising in research at the Institutes mentioned above and some others. They carry
out their research together with the best scientists, and the best students continue their
research work as postgraduates for their Ph.D.

<=

i For over 40 years about 17,000 researchers and 7,000 Ph.D's. have graduated from the
H MIPT and some of them are now very well known, such as:

® prof. A.F. Andreev (P.L.Kapitza Institute for Physical Problems, Moscow)
| ® prof. S.T.Belyaev (Russian Research Center “Kurchatov Institute", Moscow)
| © prof. O.M.Beiotserkousky (institute of Computer Aided Design, Moscow)
| © prof. L.M.Barkou (Institute of Nuclear Research, Moscow)
i ® prof. V.E.Fortov (N.N.Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Moscow)
i © prof. L.P.Gor‘kov (L.D.Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics, Moscow}
: ® prof. Yu. V.Gulyaeu (Institute of Radiotechnics and Electronics, Moscow}
© prof. Yu.A.Ryzhov (Russian Ambassdor, Paris)
© prof. V.L Ryzhii (Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow)



ASS amon AuvisuLy uroup : hitp:/ /wwesamacad org/usadvis.ntni |

_U.S. HASA Advisory Group

Betsy Ancker-Johnson, World Environment Center
Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University
Jesse H. Ausubel, Rockefeller University
Walter S. Baer, The Rand Corporation
i Francis M. Bator, Harvard University
Alfred Blumstein, Carnegie-Melion University
Chester L. Cooper, Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Floyd L. Culler, Electric Power Research Institute
Edward E. David, Jr., Edward E. David, Inc.
Peter E. de JOnosi, London, U.K.
Richard Getzinger, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Robert Herman, University of Texas at Austin
-Yu-Chi Ho, Harvard University
C. S. Holling, University of Florida at Gainsville
Manuel L. Ib6cez, Texas A&M University, Kingsville
Helen Ingram, University of Arizona, Tucson
Alex Inkeles, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Dale W. Jorgenson, Harvard University
Richard M. Karp, University of California at Berkeley
Robert W. Kates, Brown University
Carl Kaysen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nathan Keyfitz, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Judith Kildow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Miriam King,-University of Minnesota
Thomas H. Lee, Massachuseits Institute of Technology
Harold R. Lenizner, National Center for Health Statistics
Henry R. Linden, Itinois Institute of Technology
Diana M. Liverman, University of Arizona
Franklin A. Long, University of California at Irvine
. Thomas E- Lovejoy, Smithsotitah Institution
Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University
Michael Maccoby, Maccoby Group, Inc.
Gordon J. MacDonald (on leave at ILASA)
Charles Maechling, Jr., Washington, DC
Thomas F. Malone, North Carolina State University
Robert S. McNamara, Washington, DC
John R. Meyer, Harvard University
James W. Mitchell, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University
John H. Moore, Grove City College
Richard D. Morgenstern, Environmental Protection Agency and Resources for the Future
Homer A. Neal, University of Michigan
George L. Nemhauser, Georgia Institute of Technology
Rodney W. Nichols, The-New York Academy of Sciences
William A. Nitze, Environmental Protection Agency
William D. Nordhaus, Yale University
Merton J. Peck, Yale University

tof2 NB IN 107 VA. A7



i
{

- Tocated in Richland (Paas 1954a; Andersen and Soldat 1956a).

~ 1946).

File
February 10, 1988
Page 4

December 1955. (Andersen and Soldat 19562). A couple of the units were

Conclusions:

Not enough information is provided about the gpgration and analysis of the

dual filter units. They are not specific to 1311, and only two units were
Jocated offsite, Thus, they are not of much use in assessing public doses
rom . ‘ .

A.3 Constant Todine Monitoring Units

The first constant iodine (CI) monitor was installed onsite {in the 3746
Building) in July 1945 (Healy 1945). In December of 1945, two additional C1
units were installed: in the 614 Building SE of the B-Plant stack and in
Benton City (Health Instrument Section 19462). However, the monitor in
Benton City was not yet giving satisfactory service in December, 1945. By
May 1, 1946 another CI unit had been placed in the 300 Area (with further
expansion contemplated) (Health Instrument Section 1946). In March of 1947,
five CI units were in operation (Gamertsfelder 1947a). In April of 1950, six
CI units were in place (Singlevich 1950a). Sometime, between Apri? and
isos ne 1950 data from CI units were not reported any longer (Singlevich
a,b).

The CI units consisted of a GM tube enclosed by a probe. The GM counted

contamination on a special filter paper fastened to the grid portion of the
probe. Air was drawn through the filter paper and any iodine present (was
assumed) deposited. The reading was shown on a counting rate meter and was
also recorded on a Leeds & Northrup Micromax (Health Instrument Section

A collection efficiency of from 20 to 50% was assumed. The geometry was}
assumed to be from 1.2 to 15% (Healy 1945, 1946a). {

Conclusions:

Data from the CI units cannot be reliably used to assess past airborne 131] }
levels, because the efficiency of the CI Unit filters for 1311 is
questionable and the filters did not specifically collect 1311, ok

A.4 Particulate Filters

Apparently, at first, the standard air filters were radioautographed to
detect hot particle; and later, actual particulate filters were established.
At first, the particles were measured to monitor particles being discharged
from Hanford. Later, the particles were monitored to detect fallout. This
became the main method for identifying airborne fallout. Particles were
discussed extensively in the atmospheric monitoring sections when fallout was

4014217



File
February 10, 1988
Page 5

found (for example, see Paas 1952a,b). Also, special particle collection
units were located at far off locations.

Conclusions:

Data from particulate filters may be useful in assessing general fallout
contributions. However, the particulate data would not directly provide
information on the iodine contribution. The 1311 contribution from fallout
depended on the transit time from detonation to Hanford. This depended on
the particular wind and precipitation patterns. Thus, the percent of iodine
in Hanford fallout may not have been constant.

B. Caustic Scrubbers

Caustic scrubbers were connected in series to a few of the standard air
filter to a Motoair pump. Thus, the filters trapped particulates, some
fodine, and other fission products before the air passed through the scrubber
(Paas and Singlevich 1950c; Singlevich and Paas 1949). The scrubber solution
consisted of 50%, 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide and 50%, 0.1 normal sodium
carbonate; sodium iodide was also added as the carrier (Singlevich and Paas
1949). Air was sampled from 1 to 7 days at a flow rate of from 2 to 2.5 cfm
(Paas 1952c, 1954b). The 1311 was extracted from scrubber solution according
to the standard procedures by Healy et al. (1951). The scrubber had a
detection limit of about 1 x 10-13 pCi/ml (Andersen and Soldat 1956b).

In February, 1949, they were making efforts to install scrubbers on all the
air filter devices (Singlevich 1949b). TIodine-131 results from caustic
scrubbers for five locations are first included in an April through June 1949
quarterly “report (Pads ‘and “Singlevich 1950b).' Fivé locations are given two
of which are offsite (in Benton City and Richland). By July 1950, nine
scrubbers were in place, three of which were offsite in Benton City, Richland
and the 3000 Area. During the last quarter of 1951, three more units were
added (Paas 1952a). The offsite scrubbers were located at Richland, North
Richland, Benton City, Pasco and Kennewick. During the first quarter of
1953, the Kennewick unit was removed (Paas 1953). During the first quarter
of 1955, the North Richland unit was moved to the 1100 Area 614 Buil ‘ing
{Radiation Measurements Unit 1955). Thus from the first quarter of 1953 to
the end of 1955, four scrubbers were located offsite.

Preliminary investigations indicated scrubber efficiencies of 90% (Singlevich
1950b). And, the average yield was established at about 70% (Healy et al.
1955). Early work indicated that the scrubber solution contained 20 to 50%
of the total activity (Singlevich 1949c). The scrubber results were
corrected for geometry, yield efficiency, and volume as per Healy et al
(1951), Wolf (1951), and Paas (1952b). [The Appendix in HW-22682 (Wolf 1951)
provides information on calculating the activity density from beta emitters
in scrubber samples. The Appendix was effective 8/25/51. Healy et al.
(1950) provides general information on calibrations of the 6M counter and

4014218



TEACHING
EXPERIENCE

CONSULTING

COMPUTER
SKILLS

PUBLICATIONS

Engineer, Senior Research Scientist, Leading Research Scientist (1966-1971,
1973-1975, 1978-1992).

Developed mathematical and computer models for the epidemiological studies
(1972 - 1992).

+ Developed software for prevalence estimation for different types of cancer;

+ Developed computer programs for public health assessment for the populations
residing in the areas contaminated due to Chernobyl accident;

- Developed computer programs for evaluating the effectiveness for health
program interventions; .
* Developed computer models which are used in the Russian Health Ministry i
Computing Research Centers for population survival analysis; |
+ Developed mathematica! models for the estimation of sexually transmitted
diseases prevalence;

+ Developed various computer models for health resources allocation.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis / Bio-Medical Project,
Vienna, Austria. Research Scholar (1975 - 1978).

~ Developed a new approach to prevalence estimation for degenerative type
diseases based on the use of mortality data;

- Developed the computer model for estimating health resources requirements.

Moscow City Council Research Computing Center, Moscow, Russia. Head,
Laboratory for Systems Analysis (1971 - 1973).
* Provided technical support for the Moscow city planning committee.

Courses taught :

+ Business Data Processing, Tacoma Community College (1996 - Present);

: Programming Visual Basic (Lab assisting), Tacoma Community College (1996 -
Present);

+ Computer Modeling in Health Field, Moscow Institute of Physics and
Technology (1984 - 1992);

+ Systems Modeling, Moscow Power Iastitute, (1981-1982);

» Automation and Remote Control, Moscow Institute for Automation and - +
Computer Technology, (1980 - 1981). ‘

- Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Chelyabinsk-McGill Project in Population Child
Health, Chelyabinsk, Russia, (2000).

Consulted the regional Health Ministry Computer Centers in the former USSR on
applications of mathematical modeling for epidemiological studies (Stavropol,
Moscow, Novosibirsk, Tbilishi),

Languages: FORTRAN, Pascal, C, Extend, Visual Basic;
Software: Variety of MS DOS and Windows software - MS Office, GIS (IDRIS),
SPSS, STATA, SAS, Crystal Ball, etc,

2 monographs and over 50 articles and papers in Russian and English on
mathematical modeling in public health related fields



Approach is required for B Plant. .
The monthly T Plant release factors can be derived

the equipment was made Of stainless steel instead of

.. Blass. This equipment. was essentially the’ same as that

ater used at B Plant, REDOX, and PUREX. It Temained
basically unchanged through the early 1970's (Sch-
wendiman 1954; McCormack 1962). The equipment

allowed essentially continuous monitoring to be per-
formed,

Table 3, Monthly release fractions detived for 'T Plant

Heed's

Month in 1951 estimate Release fraction Sid. deviation
January - 01 0.0076 _ * 000029
0.01 0.0214 0.0060:
March 0.02 0.0172 9.0085
Apiil 0.05 0.0504 0.0167
May 0.132 0.167 0.0375
June 0.125 0.235 0.0532

. duly 012 0.074 0.0458,
August 0.0339 0.0014 0.0009

September 0.0339 4.088 0.0024

- 213
B Plant, January-September 195)

Measurements were not begun in the B Plant stack
until September 1951, but the silver reactors Were oper-
ational beginning in January 1951, Thus, no measure-

same uncertainty Corrections, a lognormal distribution
with a mean of 0.177 and 4 standard deviation of 0.072
was prepared.

T and B Plants, October 1951—Shutdown

Beginning with his October 1951 moaihly report,
Soldat (1951g) Stopped reporting the results of the
individual stack monitoring runs, At this time, his mea-

————o



}

DEMO: Software for quntitative study of population survival and demographic growth. Proc. of
IFIP/TC9 Conf. "Information systems, work and organization design", Berlin, Humboldt Univ., GDR,
1989.

34. A.A.Klementiev

Optimal contro! of an infectious disease epidemics. In: Proc. of XI All-Union Congress "Problems of
control”. Tashkent, 1989. (RUSSIAN). .

35. A.A.Kiementiev, E.G.Shekhter

Aggregate estimate of pilots’ professional health. In: Proc. of Prague Internat, Symposium "Simulation
of systems in biology and medicine" Prague, CSSR, 1990. (RUSSIAN)

36. A.AKlementiev

Model for analysis of mortality data in follow-up studies. In: Methods of data gathering and their
analysis. M., Institute for Control Sci., 1991. (RUSSIAN).

37. A.A. Klementiev

Heaith Program Effectiveness Measurement: A Case of Degenerative Diseases. Methods of
Information in Medicine. 1992; 31: 298-302.

38. A.A.Klementiev

Modeling the impact of radioactive environment contamination on population health: an applied
semiotic approach. In: Intelligent systems: a semiotic perspective. Proceedings of the 1996
International Multidisciplinary Conference, 20-23 October 1996, Gaithersburg, Maryland.

39. A.A.Kiementiev

Establishing health intervention priorities for local public health agencies. APHA 126th Annual
Meeting “Public Health and Mamaged Care". November 15-19, 1998, Washington DC.

40. Paddee Buzzard, Rebecca Casey, Alexandre Klementiev, Tery Murray

We knew you could do it! Protective factors for pregnant and parenting teenagers. Washington State
6" Annual Joint Conference on Health. October 4-6, 1999, Spokane, WA.

41. A.A. Klementiev.

Washington State population life tables, Eliminating certain causes of death, 1989 — 1999. Westem
Regional Epidemiology Network (WREN 2000). May 18-21, 2000, Ashland, OR.

42, AA. Klementiev .

Establishing health intervention priorities for local public health agencies, The 7” International
Conference on System Science in Health Care. May 29 ~ June 2, 2000, Budapest, Hungary.

43. Rebecca Casey, Alex Klementiev, Dorothy Wharton .

Mother and Child Health integrated database: structure and usage. Washington State 7" Annual Joint
Conference on Health. October 2 — 4, 2000, Tacoma, Washington.

44, Omelyanets N.I., Klementiev A.A.

Analysis of mortality and duration of life of Ukrainian population after the Chemobyl catastrophe.
International Conference Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: Results of 15-years’ follow-up
studies, June 4 - 8, 2001, Kyiv, Ukraine.

45. A.A Klementiev

Measuring health expectancy based on BRFS data. 8" Annual Joint Conference on Health. October
8-10, 2001, Yakima, Washington.

46. A.AKlementiev

Measuring years of healthy life: Washington State adults 1993-2000. 19th Annual BRFSS Conference
March 11-14, 2002, Atlanta, Georgia.

47. D.Moriarty, M.Zack, R.Kobau, Z.Gizlice, A Klementiev

Socio-Economic Determinants in Life and Health Expectancies. REVES-2003, Guadalajara, Mexico,
May 5-7, 2003.

48. A.A.Klementiev

Altemative measure of years of healthy life. REVES 2003, Brugge, Belgium, May 17-19, 2004.



ore

‘ned eve

Russell W. Peterson, Wilmington, DE

Kenneth Prewitt, Social Science Research Council
Robert H. Pry, Great Falls, VA

James Brian Quirin, Dartmouth College

Mary Martha Rabinowitch, Chicago, IL

Howard Raia tarvard University

Walter A. Rosenblith, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
F. Sherwood Rowland, University of California at Irvine
Jack P. Ruina, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Alan Schriesheim, Argonne National Labs

James K. Sebenius, Harvard Business School
Harrison Shull, Naval Postgraduate School

William J. Spencer, Sematech, Inc.

Chauncey Starr, Electric Power Research Institute
Francis X. Sutton, Dobbs Ferry, NY

Alvin M. Weinberg, Oak Ridge Associated: Universities
Roger J. B. Wets, University of Califomia at Davis

H. Peyton Young, Johns Hopkins University

Last update: 12/27/96

Return to Academy Home Page
Summary Information _

IIASA Home Page
US Committee for TASA

Contact Information

AUD: //www_amacad.org/ussdvis hint

DR ING 107 1A



4,0 RATCHET Validation Reports
4.1 Validation Procedure

My review of various reports, including Denham (1993), Mart (1993), and Napier (1994) from
Battelle’s Pacific Northwest Laboratories indicates that RATCHET has not been properly
validated. The HEDR computer codes were processed in tandem in order to validate the codes
at the same time as the source term reconstruction was being attempted.

Some of Napier’s (1994) report assessments, implying validation, are scientifically,
unacceptable:

Q “Data are not available to support such an ambitious validation program” (page 1.3)

a It has been possible to infer a validation for earlier information from a validated later
step” (page 1.5). Such a validate procedure should not be used to validate previous steps.
Confounding makes evaluation of error compensation among the various modules
impossible to establish.

Q Table 1.2, in page 1.7, indicates that all validations for RATCHET were executed in an
indirect way.

Q “The content of iodine-131 in the fuel, however, was never measured directly so that direct
validation is not possible”. This indicates that the HEDR model responsible for the reactor
simulation still has to be thoroughly validated.

Q “January and December factor of 10 under-prediction at all locations.” (page 3-11)

Q In page 5.11 it is clear that the lab was contaminated and therefore the background radiation
was already high. This is a reason for low measured values.

Q The percentile ranges presented in Figures 3.1 to 3.2, in Napier (1994), are very misleading.

: Note that the y-axis is in logarithmic scale. This procedure hides the significant differences
between the model and the measured values. Therefore, Table 4.1 — Application of the

measurement score to the results for April 13, 1946, would only change slightly in case all
the vegetation data is adjusted by a factor of 10. Additionally, there are no bounds for oyer-
predictions (score 1) or under-predictions (score 6).



|

|
|
|
|
|

Ty
}

File

February 10, 1988

Page 12

Error

TABLE 1. Potential Measurement Errors, (cont).

Discussion

TODINE~131 ANALYSIS
t

(cont)

Uncertainty

TODINE~131 ASSUMPTION:

The assumption that all the beta activity in the
caustic scrubbers was 131] may cause a bias so that
the results would indicate higher 131] levels. How
specific the caustic solution was for iodine needs
to be determined.

YIELD:

In 1951 they had established that the scrubber had
an average yield of about 70% (Healy et al. 1951).
In 1949, the yield was estimated to be 20 to 50%
(Singlevich 1949). Whether (or when) yield was
taken into account in the calculation of atmospheric
131r jevels needs to be determined.

Potential Measurement Uncertainty

Discussion

COUNTING

CALIBRATION STANDARDS:

Prior to 1950, knéwledge was poor of the actiial ”
activity of “spike” standards by which instruments
were calibrated. Healy et al. (1950) stated that:

“Measurements have either been relative or with
large uncertainty in the final value with poor
cross-checks between various laboratories.”

Poor knowledge of the standard's activity would
cause considerable uncertainty in the absolute
activity of any samples measured by the instruments
calibrated by that standard. The indication is that
indeed the measurements (prior to 1950) were more
relative than absolute. However, more information
is needed on the source of the standard and how its
activity was determined. :

Moreover, the accuracy of the correction factors
used (besides decay) depends on the “spike” sample.

4014225



File
February 10, 1988
Page 10

Pilcher, G. E., and Members of Regional Radiation Measurements Unit. . 1955.

‘Radioactive ‘Contamination in the Hanford Environs for the Period Janua
February, March, 1955. Hi-36506, General Electric Company, Richland,

Washington.

Singlevich, W. 1948a. H. 1. Environs Report for the Month of February,

1948. HW-9103, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Singlevich, W. 1948b. Radioactive Contamination in the Columbia River and
in the Air and Radiation Levels Measured in the Air at Hanford Works and
Vicinity for 1945, 1946, 1947 and Early 1948. HW-9871, General Electric
Company, Richland, Washington.

Singtevich, W. 1948c. H. J. Environs Report for Month of duly, 1948.
HW-10730, General Electric Company, Richland, Was ington.

Singlevich, W. 1948d. H.'I. Environs Report for Month of September. 1948.

Hii-11264, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Singlevich, W. 1948e. H, I. Environs Report for Month of November, 1948.
HW-11833, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Singlevich, W. 1949a. H. J. Environs Report for the Month of December,
1948. HW-12131, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Singlevich, W. 1949b. 4. 1. Environs Report for the Month of January, 1949,
Hil-12325, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Singlevich, W. 1949c. H. I. Environs Report
“+ > 1949.- HW-12629, General Eléctric Company, Richland,- Washington

i
;

|
|
i
|
|
|
|
i

Singlevich, W. 1949d. H. I. Environs Report for the Month of March, 1949.
HW-12948,

General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Singlevich, W. 1950a, H. I. Environs Report for the Month of April, 1950.
HW-17657,

General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.
Singlevich, W. 1950b. H. I. Environs Report for Month of September 1950.
HW-19046, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.
Singlevich, W., and H. J. Paas. 1949. Radioactive Contamination in the

nvirons of the Hanford Works for the Period January, February, March
1949. Hi-14243, Del., General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Turner, L. D. 1946. Vegetation Contamination for Period duly 2, 1946 to
August 31, 1946. HW-3-5055, General Electric Company, Richtand,

Washington.

4014223



|

4.0 Overview of Previously Published Data

Radivactive emissions from the Hanford activities were released to three general pathways: the
alc pathivay, the Colunibia River pathway; and ttt grounsl-water pathway. Historical date for the air
pathway are desctibed in previously published HEDR documents listed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
Previously reported information concerning the Columbia River pathway is in Section 4.3. Environ-
mental data Gn the ground-water pathway are addressed in Section 4.4.

4.1. Air Measurements

Historical documents concerning air monitoring data for 1945 through 1957 were searched for.
inventoried (Huesties 1992, 1993), and reviewed (Hanf and Thiede 1994), Historical sampling
devices are desctibed in Hanf and Thiede (1994), along with a brief statement about the problems
associated with using historical air monitoting data collected with each device.

In general, historical measurements of air contamination cannot be used because the historical air
sampling devices did not provide accurate measurements. The air sampling devices were difficult to
maintain and calibrate, did not exclusively monitor the radionuclide found to be the major contributor
of dose, iodine-131 (Napier 1992), and were used in only a few offsite locations. Wherefore, the
historical air monitoring data were not used by the HEDR Project because the dala were zot
satisfactory in quality or number for dose calculations or validation of models.

4.2 Vegetation Measurements

Historical data (1945-1947) of iodine-131 (as total beta activity in 1-gram pellets) in vegetation
are summarized in Deuham et al. (1993a). Reconstructed conversion and cortection factors for these
pellets to correct the 1945-1947 vegetation data to today's best estimates of ipdine-I31 activity are
described in Mart et al. (£993). Uncertainty and sensitivity of the conversion and correction factors
for the 1945-1947 vegetation data are discussed in Gilbert et al. (1994). Historical vegetation data
(2948-1951) are summarized in Hanf et al, (1993), and the conversion and correction factors for best
estimates of activity for the 1948-1951 vegetation data are described in Denham et al. (J993b). A
year-by-year overview (1952-1983) of historical documents available concerning vegetation and foods
sampled near Hanford is in Duncan (1994). Databases of historical vegetation data have not been
compiled bevond 1951 for the HEDR Project. Hanford's Surface Environmental Surveillauce Project
has compiied environmental media (including vegetation and foods) after 1971.

4.3 River Measurements

(a) Unpublished report fproject a0. SESP-PDMS-001), Project ant Data Management System {PDMS} Users Gude
Surface Environmertal Surveillance Project, by L. E. Bisping, 1990. Unpublished repart (project no. SESP-PDMS-
002). Project and Data Management System (PDMS) Database Steward’s Handbook, by L. E. Bisping. 1990.

41°



i

|
|
|
|

6.0 Conclusions

The HEDR model validation requires serious modifications. Various models were not validated
individually. Such procedure would verify each code adequacy and accuracy. Running thé codes
together to validate the set is not acceptable, since error confounding would be difficult to trace.

“My professional experience indicates that RATCHET, the HEDR Air dispersion model, is not
appropriate for the site. Validated U.S. EPA lagrangian puff models for complex terrain are
available, with documentation and source codes, free of charge. Such codes would have greater
acceptance from the scientific community. RACHET is in my opinion a very weak link in the .
HEDR codes.

Itis clear from the documentation available for this comparison that:

a Almost ail vegetation collected was composed of sagebrush leaves.

Q According to the DESCARTES model, the biomass rate of change over time (dB/dt = 0) for
sagebrush is zero, This numerically restricts the internal bio-accumulation of iodine-131 in
the plant.

@ A letter from a member of the HEDR group {Napier, 1997] confirms that the December 1949
(the Green Run experiment) measurements were under-corrected by a factor of 2.5.

a RATCHET would not be accepted as a dispersion model, according to existing U.S. EPA
Guidelines on Air quality models.

a [fone must use a correction factor to multiply HEDR results, this number should be between
12 and 12.8.

a This is an ongoing project. Correction factors will scale proportional to the source term.

Prof. Jesse L. Thé, Ph.D., P.Eng.

18



Modelling of the bealth resources allocation: Case of multidimentional health resource. Ibid.
(RUSSIAN).

18. A.M Petrovsky, A.A Klementiev, O.NPyatigorskaya

On the control of epidemics in venerology. In: Mathematical modelling in immunology and medicine.
Proc. IFIP Working conf.- Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1983.

19. A.A Klementiev, AB.Stupin

On investigation of prevalence fo a certain disease. Ibid.

20. A.A.Klementiev

Resources allocation modelting in the health system. M.,Inst. for Control Sci., 1983. (RUSSIAN)
21. A.A.Klementiev, A.B.Stupin

Properties of the model of an epidemic for a certain infectious disease, N-Y., Consultunts Bureau,
Automation and remote control, 11, 1984. .

22. A.A.Klementiev

~ Modelling of some veneral disease prevalence. Proc. of 3-rd Internat. Conference "Systems science in

health care". Munchen, FRG, 1984.

23. A.A.Klementiev, L-V.German .

The model of health resources reallocation. in: Data analysis and expert systems. M., Institute for
Control Sci., 1985. (RUSSIAN).

24, A.A.Klementiev

Quantitative models development for solving of the health control problems, M., Nauka, 1985. 209p.
(RUSSIAN).

25. A.A.Klementiev

On the control of infectious disease prevalence. 5-th World Congress on medical informatics
MEDINFO. Washington, DC, 1986.

. 26. A.A.Klementiev, A.B.Stupin

Analysis of the deterministic and simulation models of an infectious disease prevalence. Proc. of 5-th
Prague Internat. Simposium "Simulation of systems in biology and medicine", Praha, CSSR, 1986.
27. L.M.Manoukyan, A.M.Petrovsky, V.K.Olshansky, A.A Klementiev, R.R Moshashvili
Dispencerization: management and control. Proc. of All-Union Conf. "Informatics and computer
technology in health care", M., 1986. (RUSSIAN)

28. A.A Klementiev, A.B.Stupin

Simulation of epidemics with the use of deterministic and Monte-Carlo approaches. In: Proc, of 1-st.
World Congr. of.the Bernoulli Society, M.,vol.1; 1986.”

29. A.A.Klementiev, G.L.Strongin, 1.S.Tomarchenko

On the use of demographic modelling for the estimation of the pilots professional lifespan. In:
Quantitative models in medicine and health care. M., Institute for Control Sci., 1987. (RUSSIAN).
30. A.A.Klementiev, A.M.Petrovsky

On the optimal control of migration. In: Quantitative models in medicine and health care. M,, Institute
for Control Sci., 1987. (RUSSIAN).

31. A.A.Klementiev

Modelling in medicine and biology for population health estimation. In: Proc. of Prague Internat.
Symposium "Simulation of systems in biology and medicine" Praha, CSSR, 1988.

32. A.A.Kiementiev

An epidemiological model of degenerative-type disease: tool for morbidity estimation. Proc. of 4th
Internat. Conference "Systems Sci. in Health Care", Lyon, France, 1988.

33. A.A.Klementiev



fr uaa - Us Senior Kesearcn Scholar bttp:/ /worw tiasa.ac.at/Admin /PE/Jobs/ecssensci html

International Institute for Applied Systems| 2 j4<°
Analysis (IIASA) Us

Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria + Phone: +43-2236-807 or d
Skills

|
|

POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT
Senior Research Scholar
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies Project
- (ECS)

The Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies (ECS) Project at the International

Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IASA) is one of the leading research groups
worldwide in the analysis of long-term interactions between energy, development, and
the environment. IIASA is an interdisciplinary, non-governmental, independent
international research organization, located in Laxenburg, Austria.

Current ECS research focuses on:

1. Contributions to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental ]
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on long-term emissions scenarios (ECS project
members served as convening and lead authors in the Second Assessment Report
of the IPCC and will continue this function during the preparation of the Third

we * Assessmeiit Report).

2. Integrated assessment modeling of energy and environmental interactions with
focus on climate change and regional acidification (research activities in this
domain are mostly externally sponsored). Ng

3. Methodological and model development for endogenizing technological change.

All research activilies involve the development and use of formal modelin g techniques of
different mathematical (simulation, optimization) as well as disciplinary
(macroeconomic, engineering, ecological) orientation. Research activities are supported
through extensive networking activities (coordination of international research networks,
| organization of workshops, participation in international research consortia for
contracted research) and documented in an extensive publication record both in V
peer-reviewed academic journals and reports to external sponsors.

In order to enhance the project's human resources, we are seeking candidates for the
position of:

Senior Research Scholar

Ifa

NANA 107 WB



Snyder, S. F., W. T. Farris, B. A. Napier, TA. Ikenberry, and R. O. Gilbert, 1992, “Parameters
used in the Environmental Pathways (DESCARTES) and Radiological Dose (CIDER) Modules
of the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Integrated Codes (HEDRIC) for Air
Pathway”, PNWD-2023 HEDR, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington.

Thé, J., Thé, C., Johnson, M., “IRAP-h View ~ Industrial Risk Assessment Program User’s
Guide”, Lakes Environmental Consultants Inc., 1998.

U.S. EPA, “Guideline on Air Quality Models (revised)”, Appendix W of CFR Part 51, EPA-
450/2-78-027R, July 1986.

20



5520496,34)

$204286.17,

15068136.00

Figure 3.2 — Plane view of modeled domain - UTM Coordinates in meters

6



i
i
i

File
February 10, 1988
Page 3 .

“was ‘counted on’ the first ‘shelf about i/8-inch below the counter. It was
placed on a card and covered with cellophane (Heal 1948b). The results were
corrected for decay (Turner 1947; Singlevich 1948b , back scatter from the
counting plate, absorption in the counter window, and geometry; but, not for
self absorption or self scatter (Healy 1948b).

Until June 1948, all of the activity was assumed to be from 131] {Singlevich
1948b, Healy 1948a). This was supported by earlier studies. Early in 1946,
they had determined that asbestos paper absorbed 70% of 131] (Heal ly 1946a).

However, in June 1948, an investigation indicated that the filters were only
3 - 4% efficient for 1311. Thus, they stated that (Healy 194Ba):

"The activity listed for the air filters should be regarded as chiefly
the long lived activities discharged from the stack."

This finding of low efficiency was later contradicted by decay curve studies
in March 1949 which indicated that an appreciable amount of iodine was
collected on the air filters (Singlevich 19494). Data from 6 to 8 filters
indicated that 80 to 95% of the activity was from 1311. Experimentation
followed, By 8/50 they had determined that, indeed, only 5 to 10% of 131]
was retained by the filter (Paas and Singlevich 1950d).

A few mentions are made of how the filter data correlated with other data
(from scrubbers or vegetation). In one case the filter activity (for 3
areas) indicated greater activity than from the vegetation data (Turner
1947). A couple mentions are made of the filter activity and scrubber
activity agreeing well (Paas and Singlevich 1950a; 1951a,b).
~
- Conclusions:

Data from filters cannot be reliably used to indicate airborne 1311 levels.
since they had a low iodine collection efficiency.

However, correlations of filter activity with vegetation and scrubber ~>~~
activity for the same time periods could potentially serve @,QA function.
Such correlations could also potentially provide a better “overall picture.-
Ratios of scrubber results to filter results could potentially be used to
estimate earlier 131] contributions from the filter data, or 131]
contributions at locations where scrubbers were not found.

A.2 Dual Filter Units

Data from dual filter units is first provided for the first quarter of 1951
(Paas and Singlevich 1951b). The dual monitors were not described, nor the
analyses done. They were, however, operated at several locations for the
purposes of studying the rate of buildup and decay of beta emitters. Thus,
they provided a supplemental means of evaluating the activity seen on the
standard filters (Paas 1954a). The dual monitors were operated past

_. 4014216



re

IME amosphecie lear from he Hanon te ® B.A. Nanme au

Cross-contaminated and not working properly. Indepen-
dent °

test samples mun ‘in February showed that the
existing calibration factor for this equipment was.“low
by a factor of 500,” and it was adjusted in March.
Although new tests Tevealed correlations within a factor
Of three, the equipment was not considered teliable, and

its use was. abandoned on a routine basis ia Tune 1945"

(DuPont 1946),

B and T Plants, 1956

Repeated monitoring of the stack gases was resumed
at T Plant on 30 August 1950, The monthly reports of
IK. Soldat (1950a, b) indicate that a total of 12 mea-
surements were made in August through September 1950
from the 15-m (50-foot) level of the T Plant stack, An
additional 17 measurements Were made in October and 7
in December (Soldat 1950c, d; 19514). These measure-

Teactors, while the water scrubbers were in Operation,
Most of the measurements were intentionally made
during dissolver Operation, and sampling continued for as
Jong as fuel was being dissolved. The apparatus included
an ait pump (an ait-flow-rate recorder Was added after
the second sample was taken), a filter, and a caustic
Scrubber. The iodine captured on the filter and in the
Scrubber solution was comelated with the flow rates of
the’ sampler and stack to obtain the amount Teleased,
Tests indicated that most of the activity was accumulated
in the scrubber solution, and that what was on the filter
media was predominantly "as well, It is noted that
“work on the stack 8as problem will be continued so that
as much data as possible will be available before the,
silver reactors are installed” (Soldat’1950a),

These measurements, in themselves, are insufficient
for estimating releases because not al! fuel dissolvings
are represented, and additional releases would have been
expected during periods between dissolvings from the
balance of the Plant. However, the ‘Measurements do give
an idea of the release fraction from the disniuth-
phosphate process plants prior to the installation of the
silver reactors. In taw form, the Measurements indicate a
mean daily release factor of about 0.14 for the period,
Standard deviation 0.11, geometric mean 0.085, and
geometric standard deviation of about 2. This may be
compared to Heeb's ceutral value of 0.25. Note that the
uncertainty of the monthly values will be less than the
variability of the daily values becavse of averaging.

A number of factors must be considered when
Geriving a release fraction from this data. The apparatus
used would not capture iodine in an organic chemical
form. The sampling line had variability in the flow Fates,
There is a possibility that iodine would “plate out” on the
walls of the sampling pipe, The radiochemical analyses

Of the filter and caustic solution had some variability.
Because the measurements tended to be for 2 period
‘associated with the dissolving operations, there may be
an additional amount of iodine that was released later
from the balance of the Operations, after the sampler had

A number of studies have shown that a portion of
‘sampled was Hot collected by the sampler,

fraction was not recovered, Later measurements in the
REDOX and PUREX Stacks “... indicate that a small
fraction of the "{ may be Present in @ form other than
elemental iodine” (McComack: 1962). A correction fac-
tor to account for under-collecting Organic iodine, with a
Giangular distribution of miniminn 1.0, most likely value
1, maximum of 1.2 has been assigned. Uncertainty

factors for stack measurements are summarized in Table
2. . .

Schwendiman (1954) reports that the gas flow rates
in the sampling system were recorded and maintained
within 20% of the nominal flow rate, Therefore, an
Uncertainty factor with a triangular distribution of mini-
mum 0.8, most likely value of 4.0, maximum 1.2 has
been assigned. See Table 2. . -

A detailed analysis of the poténtial for iodine to be
tapped in the sampling line was performed by McCor-
mack (1962), McCormack's analyses were made in pairs

‘Table 2. Uncertainty factors in ?'T measurements (all are dimen-
sionless multipliers).

Distribution Centeal
Factor ype Muimum value Maximum
Correction for organic ®y
fraction

BAT Plants Teianguisr 5 0 Li 12

REDOX Trisngwar 1.0 At 42

PUREX Triangular 1.1 3s

Air sampler Uniform 0.4 06
Sampling gas flow rate Triangular 0.8 Lo 12
‘Scunpling Tine losses Uniform 1.0 it
Analytical variability
~ B&T plants Triangular 9g “LO 12

REDOX &PUREX _ Tuisogular 0.85 100 jas

Air sampler Téeguer 08 “49 45
Collection ‘Trimgur 092 19 gs
Sauupler availability .

B&T plans Unifom 19 12

REDOX & PUREX Uniform 10 41

Air sampler * ‘Féangulr 075 19 4125

Reporting peciod | Uniform oa 12
Sane

png

fe ge epeenen



$
KS o
» Seine ss
2a ce MOISE se
ESS oS SEES NNER SESS Poa
SR ORIEN EOE Pron

WSS
Soeatoe o
POY NSSieser Sasser i”
ss VAY REAR IR ussssacietes : a
LEP I VON eH oR RE RO SESS rage eeeeeen
Mi SNe SA SNR SRR SMO
RATAN ISO NERS NRA nS
PRLS INS SSNS ACEP See OEE 20S NOSES LON NEN SE KISSES
SEK oer Sec ae ASI SS SOS RN NSS ER ORY
seresesceaston cogs gurmseten tea esctesestesraN Woe a
seesitres ca tatentetoncaerrerstas Naseer
SA SRN Replat sereteectrieays Ngee
Kinet eee seat pr
Wh NNR EER ORES A ERIS s
{SSE RRO RK Moe eR RS REC
SNARE RELA SRS NEN Sea OLS
. WDSERSSESE EK DES OTSA SSR SSIES SENS SETNC ON SH GOS OS SONS
SI PESESRR Sosa NS SON SORES OR SELENE RTO SEE NOOSE
Matera: Ustscieeseteereeeeees essere tanto sfatetssetasssschrg8y

reassgegt Tate pla sateen

Seesose SoC X BG RAM Fores sf
SAUL aes
bas ccssscsccetescesttaszesccrascosteasce:
. “UY Bessea ee Sesser rose
(DRE EISORTES
marestesyeptoeas VARA

tion over modeled domain (meters)

in Eleva

3.1 Terra

Figure



i
{
i
|
i

“These records belonged to employees who left Hanford with
Du Pont when General Electric replaced Du Pont as the major
contractor. Because Du Pont had taken exposure records of
these persons with them, a decision was made that these dose
records were the responsibility of Du Pont rather than the
Hanford Radiological Records program.” See footnote on pg.
2,2,

In other words, the Du Pont Hanford worker dose records are
not a part of the Hanford Radiological Records program. This

' would appear to be the definitive word on the subject.

Accordingly, in regard to point F.2, The extensive documentary
evidence continues to confirm there are no individual dosimetry or bio-
assay records available for Du Pont workers at Hanford, and Petitioner
would respectfully again suggest that CEDR and ORAUT make that point
clear in their reports.

To understand the impact of the documents and expert reports that
Petitioner is submitting have upon “the limitations of existing DOE or
AWE records in radiation exposures at” Hanford, a review of the
errors or deficiencies in the steps or stages of the underlying basis of
ORAUTs dose reconstruction demonstrate the limitations of existing
records.

_ Supplement of Klementiev’s Qualifications :
In regard to these errors, Petitioner had attached the expert report of
A. A. Klementiev in his Response of questions raised in the phone
conference with NIOSH and ORAUT representatives. To supplement his
report please see attached Klementiev’s CV of his enormous academic
training in physics, mathematics and in the mathematical modeling of
complex systems, and publications.

Supplement to Studies demonstrating invalidity of Napier’s
reliance upon atmospheric air monitoring.

HEDR’ chief author, Napier, made a critique of Heeb’s work which
supported some of the same points made by Petitioner’s experts and the
EPRP. But Napier depended also upon the atmospheric air monitoring

Page 2 of 3



_ Exhibit8 |



File
February 10, 1988
Page 8

_Healy, J. W. 1946a. H. I. Special Studies. Report for Week..Ending 1/33/46 .-

fd-3-3383, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Richland, Washington.
(Contains Weekly Special Studies Reports from week ending 1/13/46 to
week ending 8/31/46).

Healy, J. W. 1946b. Vegetation Contamination for First Quarter of 1945.
HW-3-3495, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Richland, Washington.
Healy, J. W. 1946c. Vegetation Contamination for Second Quarter of 1946,
Hii-3-3603, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Richland, Washington.

Healy, J. W. 1947. The Trend of Contamination in the Air, The Columbia
River, Rain, Sanitary 1. Vegi ,and Wastes, at the Hanford Works

ary Water, Vegetation, ai
for the Period July, August tember, 1947. Hi-7317, General Electric

Company, Richland, Washington.

Healy, J. W. 1948a. H. 12 Environs Report for the Month of June, 1948.
HW-10427, General £7

ectric Company, Richland, Washington.

Healy, J. W.  1948b. Long-Lived Fission Activities in the Stack Gases and
Vegetation at _the Hanford Works. HW-10758, General Electric Company,
Richland, Washington. : - oe

Healy, J. W., and C. C. Gamertsfelder. 1946. H. I, Environs Reports - Sept.
1946 thru May, 1947. HW-7-5042, General Electric Company, Richland,
Washington.

Healy, J. W., L. C. Schendiman and R. C. Thorburn. 1950. Counter
Calibrations in the H. I. Methods Group. HW-18258, General. Electric
Company, “RichTand, Washington.

Healy, J. W., R. C. Thorburn and Z. E. Carey. 1951. H. I. Control

Laboratory Routine Chemical Procedures. HW-20136, General Electric Company,
Richland, Washington.

Leboeuf, M. B. 1959. Analysis of Ver etation for 1-131, HW-15743, General
Electric Company, Rich and, Washington.

Mickelson, M. L. 1951. Livermore Research Laboratory Radiation Background
Survey. HW-20246, General Electric Company, Richland, Washington.

Paas, H. J. 1951. Radioactive Contamination in the Environs of the Hanford
Works for the Period July, August, September. 1951. H¥-23133, General
Electric Company, Rich and, Washington.

Paas, H. J. 1952a. Radioactive Contamination in the Environs of the Hanford
Works for the Period October, November December, 1951. HW-24203, General

Electric Company, Richland, Washington. °



24 Health Puysics
Teport series authored by Keene (Keene 195} through
19551), Senerally titled Separations Section Radiation
Monitoring Monthly Report. This seties is the outgrowth
and continuation of Soldat’s ing series,

- Gvery month, this series Yeports B and T Plant Teleases,
and later REDOX rel i i

Mate the source term, the Uncertainties in the monitored
Teleases are similar to those described above for B and T
Plant in the year 1950 for Organic iodine, as flow rate

included the releases of the last few days of the Preceding
month and excluded the last few days of the current
month. This lag was cansed by the length of time
Tequired to collect, transport, Process, and: report the
iodine in the Caustic solution from the sampler, A

REDOX, January 1952 throngh January 1956
The sampling system installed in the REDOX stack

Was essentially identical fo that in B and T Plants '

although the first few Measurements were made with
temporary equipment (Soldat 1952a)]. The releases re-
Ported by Soldat, Keene, and the Site Monthly reports are

August 2002, Volume 83, Namter 9

oa Schwendiman 1954). See Table 2. With these Taulgj-
pliers, a stochastic nucettainty factor with mean/meds

PUREX and REDOX, Jaunary 1956—Shutaown
‘The PUREX Plant used @ countercurrent solvent

ic to
the stack 8aSes; they found that the ratios
vatied from 0.12 to 147 over a 20-4 Period. This

multiplier for PUREX with mean/median of 1.4 and 95
Percentile range from 0.8 to 235,

The monitoring Tepoit series by Keene ends in late
1955, and the ability to resolve the Separate contributors *

to the totar "stack releases ig lost from the Hanford Site

-the PUREX Uncertainty is larger than that for REDOX,

the PUREX uncertainty
Subsequent months,

The REDOX Plant ceased dissolving operations in
November 1966, and PUREX closed in early 1972, 4
brief PUREX run of aged N Reactor fue} occurred in the
mid-1980's, but the Sif releases from that campaign were
negligible because the fuel was many years old,

Tange has been applied to all

Terain unchanged, the Coefficient of vari-
ation should be constant. The valine assigned for the
Temaining months, 0.16, is the average of this period.
The monthly releases and Coefficients of variation from
1956 through 1971 are included in Table L

fe



December 49

i or 0.18
0.14

40.12

4

40.40
BF 0.08

Count

0.06

42g sed uopsodoig

4r . {0.04

al Alle [How

0.06
-200 -100 Q 100 200
OIFFER48

Figure 5.4 — Smaller range, smaller discretization (observed*4.8 - modeled)

5.3.2 HEDR Codes Correction Factor

In air dispersion modeling one can, in most instances, correct results by using a correction factor.

There are a number of conditions to, be satisfied in order to obtain an acceptable correction, The

RATCHET code violates some important requirements:

1. The particle size cannot change.
2. Calibration of flat terrain models to match complex terrain is unacceptable.

However, if RATCHET will still remains as credible evidence in court, a simple mathematical
exercise can produce a “Correction Factor” to reduce the average error. The technique involves
multiplying all the model values, in each cell, by a factor that will bring the average difference
(measurement — modeled) as close to zero as possible.

Two simple cases were tried. For the December 1949 data the correction factor was found to be
12. For the March and April months in 1951 the correction factor was found to be 12.8. Figure

- 5.5 shows the difference histogram without the correction factor. Figure 5.6 presents the

histogram with the 12.8 correction factor.

16



E U.o. WADA Aavsory Uroup-
F .

12

U.S. HASA Advisory Group

Betsy Ancker-Johnson, World Environment Center
Kenneth J. Arrow, Stanford University

Jesse H. Ausubel, Rockefeller

Walter S. Baer, The Rand Corporation

Francis M. Bator, Harvard University

Alfred Blumsiein, Carnegie-Mellon University
Chester L. Cooper, Pacific Northwest Laboratories
Floyd L. Culler, Electric Power Research Institute
Edward E. David, Jr., Edward B. David, Inc,

Peter E. de J6nosi, London, U.K.

Richard Getzinger, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Robert Herman, University of Texas at Austin

-Yu-Chi Ho, Harvard University

C. S. Holling, University of Florida at Gainsville

Manuel L. tb6cez, Texas A&M University, Kingsville
Helen Ingram, University of Arizona, Tucson

Alex Inkeles, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Dale W. Jorgenson, Harvard University

Richard M. Kaxp, University of California at Berkeley
Robert W. Kates, Brown University

Carl Kaysen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nathan Keyfitz, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Judith Kildow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Miriam King, University of Minnesota

Thomas H. Lee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Harold R. Lentzner, National Center for Health Statistics
Henry R. Linden, Illinois Institute of Technology

Diana M. Liverman, University of Arizona

Franklin A. Long, University of California at Irvine

‘Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution

Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University

Michael Maccoby, Maccoby Group, Inc.

Gordon J. MacDonald (on leave at HASA)

Charles Maechling, Jr., Washington, DC

‘Thomas F. Malone, North Carolina State University
Robert S. McNamara, Washington; DC

John R. Meyer, Harvard University

James W. Mitchell, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University

John H. Moore, Grove City College

hiip:/, ‘few amacad.org /usadvis.btmi

Richard D. Morgenstern, Environmental Protection, Agency and Resources for the Future

Homer A. Neal, University of Michigan

George L. Nemhauser, Georgia Institute of Technology
Rodney W. Nichols, The New York Academy of Sciences
William A. Nitze, Environmental Protection Agency
William D. Nordhaus, Yale University

Merton J. Peck, Yale University



data for validation of his use of questionable stack release data despite three
separate previous studies finding such data to be unreliable and inadequate
for any use,

In addition to Exh. #8: Memo from Sandra Cannon to Dill
Shipler: Hanford’s Air Monitoring Program from 1945-1955, June 17,
1993, and following Memo: Hanford’s Air Monitoring Program from 1945
To 1955 ~ A Compilation of Notes, E. 1. Mart, February 10, 1988, there is
also: :

Exh. #9: PNWD-2226, Thiede, 1994.
“Therefore the historical air monitoring data were not used by the HEDR
project because the data were not satisfactory in quality or number
for dose calculation or validation of models.” Pg. 4.1.

Exh, #10: PNWD-2234, R. W. Hanf, 1994.
“The result was that air monitoring data are insufficient for use in the
HEDR project.” Pg. 1.

In other words, not only are Heeb’s release fractions inaccurate, but
Napier’s effort to correct HEDR is also deficient. HEDR cannot be used
with any scientific plausibility as a source for release fractions, or releases,
for any time period.

Yours truly,

_ Petitioner —~

Page 3 of 3



1. Data on OHR OP (This meant that according to HEHF records in 1988, the
worker had been employed in operations work prior to 1979.) ‘A total of
44,407 workers qualified by meeting this criterion.

2. OHH79 data on MST79 (This meant that according to HEHF records in 1979
the worker had been employed in operations work prior to 1979.) An
additional 104 workers, who had not qualified under criterion 1, met
criterion 2. It is noted that there were 3 workers with OHH7S data on
MST79 where data on more recent OHH88 files indicated that initial
employment was after 1978; these 3 workers were not considered to be
eligible for the study population.

3. Current records (other than OHH_OP) at HEHF indicating the worker was a
part of the operations worker cohort. To ascertain this, staff at HEHF
searched for records of workers who were on MST79, but not on OHH_OP.
Many of these workers had only dosimetry data, and had not previously
had data on the OHH79 file. These searches were primarily conducted in

An additional 36 workers, who had not qualified under criteria 1 or 2,
qualified under criterion 3. Thus, a total of 44,547 workers met at
Teast one of the three criteria.

Because it is known that the OHH files sometimes erroneously included
workers who reported for initial physical examinations, but never actually
started work, it was also required that in addition workers meet at Teast one
of the three criteria listed below. The first two criteria involve use of
dosimetry records from both ORE and MST79. The use of MST79 was necessary,
because the ORE system no longer includes the records of over 10,000 early
workers, for whom external dosimetry data were available in 1979 when MST79
was created.!

A. Workers had to have at least one year.of onsite operations dosimetry on

the ORE file prior to 1979, 26,375 workers qualified by meeting this
criterion. Dosimetry data for these workers were taken from ORE.

8. Workers had to have dosimetry data on MST79. An additional 10,305
workers, who did not meet criterion A, qualified under criterion B. For
these workers, dosimetry data were taken from MST79. In some cases,
workers had dosimetry on MST79, had a Social Security number match with
ORE but no onsite operations dosimetry on ORE (offsite or construction

_—_——

‘These records belonged to employees who left Hanford with DuPont when
General Electric replaced DuPont as the major contractor. Because DuPont had
taken exposure records of these persons with them, a decision was made that
these dose records were the responsibility df DuPont rather than the Hanford
Radiological Records program.

2.2



References

Barad, M., “Project Prairie Grass, A Field Program in Diffusion”, Geophysical Research Papers,
No. 59, Vols I and II, Report AFCRC-TR-58-235, Air Force Cambridge Research, 1958.

Denham, D.H:, Dirkes, R.L., Hanf, R.W;, Poston, TM, Thiede, M.E., Woodruff, RK, “Phase
1 Summaries of Radionuclide Concentration Data for Vegetation, River Water, Drinking Water,
and Fish”, PNWD — 2145 HEDR, Battelle — Pacific Northwest Laboratories, June 1993.

Duncan, J., P., “Overview of Vegetation Monitoring Data, 1952-1983”, PNWD-2235, Battelle -
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1994.

Hanf, R.W., Duncan, J.P., Thiede, M.E., “Todine — 131 in Vegetation Collected Near the
Hanford Site: Concentration and Count Data for 1948-1951", PNWD-2177 HEDR, Battelle —
Pacific Northwest Laboratories, September 1993.

Hanna, S., R., “Uncertainties in Air Quality Simulation Model Predictions”, Boundary Layer
Meteorology, 62, 3-20, 1993.

Jarvis, RE., “Evaluation of Radiochemical Aspects of HEDR”, Report to Tom H. Foulds and
Associated Counsel, 1995.

Mart, E. 1, D. H. Denham, and M. E. Thiede. 1993. “Conversion and Correction Factors for
Historical Measurements of Iodine-131 in the Hanford-Area Vegetation, 1945-1947", PNWD-
2133 HEDR, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Miley, T.B., Eslinger, P.W., Nichols, W.E., Lessor K.S., Ouderkirk, S.J., “User Instructions for
the DESCATES Environmental Accumulation Code”, PNWD-2251 HEDR, Battelle ~ Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, May 1994.

Napier, B., Ikenberry, T., “Comparison of Calculated Vegetation Concentrations with
Mesurements in 1946”, Presentation slides, CDC Technical Workshop, Session I, August 14,
1997,

Napier, B., Letter to Dr. Charles Miller, January 12, 1998.

Napier, B., Letter to Mr. Joe Wayman, April, 1997.

Napier, B., Simpson, J., Eslinger, P., Ramsdell, J., Thiede, M., Walters, W., “Validation of the
HEDR Models ~ Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project”, Battelle ~ Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, 1994.

Stewart, D., “Air Dispersion Modeling Issues Related to the Hanford Radiation Litigation”,

prepared for Tom Foulds and Associated Counsel for the Hanford Radiation Litigation, March,
1996.

19